tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 10, 2013 8:00pm-1:01am EDT
barrel. oil companies have more than enough profits to conduct their own research. in contrast, there's no profit to be had for communities in disaster preparation. merely self-preservation. that re the efforts demand our time and our attention and demand taxpayer funds. the cost of recovering from natural disasterers are only increasing, irrational -- a rational approach to the problem is to put more effort in preparing for them and mitigating the results. i hope that this body will support not only my amendment but the flood control and account as well. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word.
i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment but i appreciate his persistence in trying to find an offset. i share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our nation's water resources infrastructure. as i have said on a number of occasions, the corps of engineers was and really one of our primary priorities inputting our bill together. the total program level is $50 million above the budget request d $150 million above the post-sequester level. the flood control and emergencies account specifically, it's at the president's request. these funds will go primarily to training and response activities. if repairs to projects are necessary due to storms, the corps has previously appropriated unobligated flood control and coastal emergency funds which could be used for these purposes.
on the other hand, the bill is hash has already reduced funding for fossil fuels by 16% reduction and we took another substantial reduction. research conducted within this program ensures that we use our nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. we simply can't take another reduction to this account. for this reason and several others, i oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford, for his leadership in co-sponsoring this particular amendment with me. we introduced this amendment because with a nearly $17 trillion debt, the federal government can no longer continue to subsidize wasteful programs and policies. the programs that this amendment would eliminate, some of them in my own state, do little to achieve their intended purpose of economic development. these are wasteful programs that the g.a.o., the government accountability office and even the obama administration have no track record of success. in his 2012 budget, president obama eliminated federal funding for the denali commission, and his argument was that the projects are not funded through a free market or merit-based
system. additionally the white house noted that there are 29 other federal programs capable of fulfilling this commission's mandate. i would submit that this is also the case for a number of other commissions, for example, the ap latchian regional commission, the northern border regional commission and the southeast crescent regional commission, all of which we reduced. of particular note and concern is the recent report from the denali commission, the inspector general stated that $100 million is missing from the bank accounts. in his 2012 semi-annual report to congress, the inspector general recounted his attempts to track down the lost funds, unsuccessfully and he recommended that congress not re-authorize the commission in light of this mismanagement. like citizens against government
waste, i seek to end funding for these commissions. by reducing the appropriations to these programs, my amendment would save $90 million for american taxpayers. g.a.o. analysis found numerous federal programs that overlap and provide similar services. in these reports, g.a.o. found no less than 80 economic development programs administered by four different agencies. year after year we hear about the inefficiency and waste that is occurring within these programs. this is inefficiency, duplication and overlap have cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. these commissions were established for one purpose, economic development. et the c.b.o. has found no evidence that they have provided jobs. the inability to determine success of these success is due to their overlap with other
programs in agencies. taxpayers are fed up with wasteful spending. it is time to identify wasteful programs and these are the definition of wasteful programs. i urge my colleagues to support his commonsense amendment. and i would mention that we have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ? mr. chabot: i do yield back. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. chabot of ohio, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the noling, section, the amounts otherwise made available for this act, delta regional authority, den arch li commission, northern border commission and southeast crescent regional commission are hereby reduced to zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does -- the gentleman from ohio is recognized.
mr. chabot: i would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, which in my view clearly indicates and as i stated before, a tremendous amount of duplication and overlap in each one of the programs that i meppingsed. they are better dealt with at the state and local level. the firms there are much closer to these types of programs in the federal government. they have no track record of success in doing what they were intended to do and that is create economic development and job growth and the g.a.o. report as i indicated has indicated that the programs are duplicative and tremendous amount of mismanagement. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> to move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to oppose this
amendment, this attempt by the gentleman from of ohio to zero out of regional commissions' budget. i focus on the a.r.c. the purpose of the a.r.c. is to close the gap between them and the rest of the nation and bring 25 million people into the nation's economic mainstream. the goal is to help make the region and its people contributors to the national economy and to give them the opportunity to compete in today's international economy. ap region, ap lash yeah -- atch -- appalachia faces disbursed population, lack of financial and human resources
and weak track record in applying for and receiving assistance from other federal programs, even with a.r.c.'s funding, in fiscal year 2010, ppalachia received 31% less in expenditures per capita than the rest of the nation, $11 thourk 5 versus $16,569 for the nation as a whole. the investments do not result in appalachia getting more than the rest of the country. a.r.c.'s programs do not duplicate other federal programs as mentioned by the gentleman. they extend the reach of those programs into the most hallenging parts of appalachia enabling distressed communities to take advantage of federal programs where they would not otherwise be able to.
the funds are a local match that enables local communities to compete successfully for these other federal programs. the recent recession has hit appalachia disproportionately hard. arly 2/3 of appalachia's 420 counties have unemployment rates greater than the national average. the recession has wiped out all the job gains that have occurred since the year 2000. it wipes out the gains since 2004. further, a.r.c. has compiled an impressive record of accomplishments in creating economic opportunity. om fiscal year 2008 to 2012, 60% of irected 55% to its non-highway funds to distressed counties. the number of high-poverty counties has been cut from 295
in 1960 to 8 in 2013. the regional poverty rate has been cut almost in half from 31% to 16% and infant mortality has been reduced by 2/3. and the rural health care infrastructure has been strengthened through the addition of over 400 rural health care facilities. e percentage of adults has increased by over 70% and students in appalachia now graduate from high school at nearly the same rate as that of the rest of the nation. more than 850,000 ap latchian residents have access to new water and electricity services through a.r.c. projects. madam chair, the a.r.c. has rked and has shown
demonstrable in the region. major challenges confront the region. nearly a fourth of the counties suffer from severe economic distress. 98 counties are formally classified as distressed and 99 are at risk in the category. it trails the nation in personal per capita income. roughly 25% of households are not served by a public water system, compared to 15% of the rest of the nation's households. and 48% of the households are not served by a public sewage system compared to the national average of 25%. the region has been hit hard by the loss of jobs in
manufacturing industries. the region has lost 1/4 of its manufacturing jobs. the a.r.c. has been a model that has worked. for these reasons, we oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition. >> strike the last word. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. it is no secret that our nation's budget is bleeding in red ink and this house has approved a budget that will turn that around. the appropriations committee has brought forth bills consistent with that budget. i want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from new jersey, ranking member, the gentlewoman from ohio, for their efforts in meeting these budget targets, eliminating wasteful programs, but at the same time reserving
our priorities. this amendment specifically deletes fundings for the ap latchian regional commission and i would like to address that. this is not a wasteful program. it's invested in infrastructure. it's changed the lives and income of the men and women in that region. when the commission was formed five decades ago, it included some of the poorest counties of the poorest states in the nation. since then, it has achieved measurable results. the number of counties of people living in high poverty have been cut in half. students without a high school education, infant mortality has been cut by 2/3. mr. nunnelee: but the men and women of this aren't sitting by
waiting for federal investment to show up to solve our problems. we have used the federal investment and leveraged it with local and other state investments. n the last four years, the regional commission has invested $360 million in that region. at the same time, over a billion dollars of other public investment has occurred. what has that done? t's attracted over 2.8 billion in private investment resulted in 122,000 jobs that have been created. this commission has made the commission is making a difference in the lives of the families in aye appalachia and because of that in appalachia and because of that i oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise to strike the last word. i rise this evening in opposition to my buckeye state colleague, congressman chabot, and i'm somewhat perplexed by this amendment. i don't really understand why he's offering it. i have to oppose him but this particular -- if we just look at the appalachian regional commission, it benefits ohio. it benefits some of those river counties that have historically left out of the economic mainstream. if you come to ohio it's rather interesting, there's a story that goes, if you look at the state, there's the big cities of cleveland which i'm privileged to represent a portion of, columbus, which is the state capital, and cincinnati, where the gentleman is from, and the story goes that those are the big three. and then there's the other part of the state. that kind of winds its way from
toledo down toward marietta. and the closer you get to kentucky and tennessee, the situation gets a little bit rugged. in fact, i had occasion to travel there this year for the sad occasion of our former colleague, congressman charlie which willson's funeral. and i remember how hard charlie worked to represent his district and in just getting to where we had to go for the ceremony, i was struck again by how that part of ohio is so inaccessible. just to try to move through the territory and get to where we were going, and then i finally got to the high schooly where the ceremonies were held -- school where the ceremonies were held and as i walked into the high school i saw all the bricks that charlie had helped to start a project to help to promote education in his region because there was no
institution of higher learning, they this had to link up to institutions in other parts of the state. and just driving around and looking at that part of ohio and the road system doesn't quite connect as it does from the other big three c's, the other portion of the state doesn't work that way. and so the appalachian regional commission meets a very important need even though it's not a part of the state i live in. it's a very -- there are very hardworking people, economic opportunities, especially in more llier parts is difficult to achieve. the appalachian regional commission spans several counties and several states and it tries to bring hope and opportunity in these regions. the great part about our country is that we're supposed to take care of one another. and the appalachian regional commission provides a mechanism, now going over several decades really, that has truly made a difference. but i can guarantee you, for the parts of ohio that are
included in its boundaries, the work is not finished. and with what's been happening in certain sectors of the economy, in many of these hollows and many of these nooks and crannies, life has gotten harder, not easier. so i just want to say that i don't know what motivates the gentleman's amendment this evening, but i really do think it would hurt ohio. and it would hurt a lot of these counties and spanning into other states that are covered and the other commissions that exist are not parts of america, take the denali commission or the northern border regional commissioner, the delta regional authority, these are not areas that are easily lifted in terms of their economic performance. and they need help. and so i say to my colleagues, i would urge them to oppose the gentleman's amendment and i want to thank all those who have worked with the
appalachian regional commission, particularly in my own state. i know it's not always easy and we want to do what we can to support them. so, i yield back my remaining time, madam chair. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to rise in opposition to this amendment as well. as has been noted here, this was created in 1965 as the a.r.c. and it is has -- it has a real proven track record of success in creating economic development. in an area of the country that faces unique challenges. mr. aderholt: again it creates economic development and i think that needs to be stressed. it's not a handout but the a way to try to make an investment into the region of the country that really can use some economic development encouragement and that's exactly what this program does.
as a result of a.r.c. funding, the regional poverty rate has been cut almost in half. infant mortality rates have been reduced and job-creating infrastructure has provided new and improved water and sewer services to over 11,000 residents. and that's just -- 112,000 residents and that's just in the last five years. despite the tremendous progress that this program has made over the years, there's challenges that still exist. this region has lost roughly 1/4 of its manufacturing jobs and nearly 1/4 of appalachia's counties still suffer from severe and persistent economic distress. so now is not the time to zero out this effective program. especially when you're focusing on economic development. now more than ever we must empower local communities and regional planning commissions to utilize this much-needed federal assistance and provide the basic building blocks for regional economic development. so, i would strongly urge my
colleagues to vote no on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. chabot: may i ask for a recorded vote? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. mr. butterfield: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i reserve a point of order. the chair: without objection, for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you, madam chair. madam chair, i am very
disappointed to say the least that significant cuts are being proposed to reduce funding for the u.s. army corps of engineers. but with that in mind, i've come to the floor this evening with an idea that i think could mitigate the effects of those cuts. my amendment has no cost, i will begin by saying that. my amendment has no cost associated with it. it simply expresses the sense of congress that the army corps of engineers should consider and prioritize projects that mitigate the danger of natural disasters. eastern north carolina is especially vulnerable to extreme weather events and other states have the same vulnerability. the corps works to improve the safety of communities near thes into river in north carolina and in princefield where hurricane floyd all but destroyed the town because of the rapidly rising and poorly contained tar river. my amendment would give added
confidence to my constituents in north carolina and to many of your constituents as well. that the federal government is doing everything possible to protect and reinforce communities and enableds from natural disasters. for several years the nation has witnessed the widespread devastation caused by these disasters. hurricane sandy and eye ren are just two examples -- irene are just two examples. communities affected by natural disasters like those in my district face a long recovery filled with hardship and painful dilemmas. the underlying bill we are discussing today cuts $104 million in civil probablies of the corps. and it -- projects of the corps. and it rescinds $200 million in previously appropriated funding. at the same time the corps has a $60 million backlog of projects and some of my colleagues have referenced that tonight. many of these are important places like my district and many of yours as well, that
experienced frequent storms. due to insufficient funding and a prohibition on new construction, no new projects have been initiated by the corps since the year 2010. the corps has many important responsibilities but none more so than its effort to mitigate flood and storm dangers. the corps provides essential mitigation assistance such as repairing damaged levees and providing emergency water supplies to communities in need. it also works to engineer infrastructure that will prevent some of the effects of natural disaster. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration has predicted an especially active hurricane season with up to 11 hurricanes and up to 16 major hurricanes in the six-month hurricane season. the number predicted -- of predicted storms is significantly greater than the seasonal average of six and three majors. they've also indicated that
hurricanes threaten inland islands through rain and strong winds and flooding as we saw in many communities. never has funding and support for the corps been more critical to my constituents and the many areas throughout the country. so as we consider a bill that plans to reduce funding for the corps, we must keep in mind the communities who may suffer and many who have spoken tonight come interest those districts them. suffer the most from this type of activity. i remind my colleagues that this amendment cost noes money whatsoever, a no vote on the amendment does carry the cost of heavy inaction. and so i want to thank you. i ask the chair to overrule the point of order. the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned earlier that he supports the corps and funding for the corps and this is simply an effort to try to instruct the corps to prioritize the projects as they make these difficult decisions. i thank you for listening, i
would yield back at this time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from new jersey insist on his point of order? mr. frelinghuysen: yes, madam chair, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislation on an appropriation bill. therefore it violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in mr. perriello: -- in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment proposes to state a legislative position. i'm asking for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to resume. the amendment offered -- rule. the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina proposes to state a legislative position of the house. as such, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule
21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> my friend, mr. duffy from wisconsin, and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. will the gentleman specify the amendment? .> amendment to h.r. 2609
>> amendment number 20. in the congressional record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. kelly of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, madam chair. the reason i'm here tonight is to talk about the efforts that are being used to divert harbor maintenance trust fund moneys to purposes other than what congress intended. and that is dredging and maintenance of our harbors. i'm talking about fairness and i'm talking about commerce. and we all know, we've known for years, that if we have a problem when funds are collected for an intended purpose, sometimes they don't get used that way. so we have money in but money doesn't come out the way it was put in or for its intended use. there are a number of reasons
for this happening. but until we get more funds for their intended purpose, i oppose and mr. duffy and i oppose expanding the authorities for the use of this funding. this is a matter of fairness. the harbor maintenance trust fund has carried a surplus since 1997. at the end of fiscal year 2012 the trust fund had an estimated $7 billion surplus that was not spent on harbor maintenance. u.s. army corps of engineers has estimated that full channels are available less than 35% of the time. that's unacceptable and just from an economic standpoint should be unacceptable. ships, especially those in my district and throughout the great lakes are light-loading. when that happens, america productivity is lost. we can't load the ships to their capacity because we haven't
maintained our harbors. this is an afront to commerce. goes back to the very beginning of what congress thought was so important, getting products from point a to point b. mr. chairman, we must ensure that the monies intended for dredging are not siphonned off. the monies will be used to expand the uses of the harbor maintenance trust fund monies. i know my good friend from new jersey has supported in the past and i appreciate his consideration. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. >> i rise in support of the kelly-duffy amendment. let me be clear the needs of the nation's ports and harbors are
great and they are largely unmet today. the u.s. army corps of engineers has made an effort to maintain these facilities which are essential for american manufacturers and the business community to access markets around the world. we are talking about jobs and business income here and every state and every congressional district in this country. beginning in 1997, however, as mr. kelly just pointed out, both congress and the administration have fallen short of allocating the entire balance of the harbor trust fund monies to a current rate of less than 50% of the total receive news received. tragically as a result, we have fallen behind in our essential harbor maintenance. mr. nolan: if we were to restore full funding, the army corps statements -- statements it
would take five years to catch up on the nation's smaller ports which are nevertheless essential for local economies. channel dredging is the most critical factor in maintaining our harbors. to be sure there are other needs. in 2011, the army corps suggested that this fund could be used to help harbor security and others need constant maintenance. of these nd the use funds without expanding the total funds appropriated, we will add to our current backlog, choke off future commerce and cost the american economy. the port of duluth in my district is already restricting out-of-bound shipments to 80% of the capacity. because of this backlog in maintaining proper channel
depth. how can we justify our fleet to operate at less than full efficiency. i urge my democratic colleagues to support this amendment and help us prevent a bad situation rom getting worse. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i yield five minutes to congressman kelly and congressman nolan speaking on the amendment and to say this harbor trust fund and this amendment gives us the opportunity to talk about that and the importance to all of our hashors. and i spoke earlier today and i don't know how long it will take to narrow the channel, what has been happening is with less money, the width has been
narrowing. so maybe our ships look like this rather than this, because there aren't enough funds to dredge the -- all of the ports that are necessary. and there have been some harbors that have been shut down. this gives us the opportunity to talk about the necessity of the review of the hash oishferor trust fund and future use to get a better allocation so we can take care of all of these ports that are being pressed around the country. and i wonder if the gentlemen has anything additional they ould like to put on the record regarding the great lakes, i would be pleased to yield time to them.
>> i would just add that it's costing business and commerce throughout the country and the great lakes billions of dollars. this is critical and essential infrastructure and we look forward to working with you to find a way to release that trust fund for what it was intended, which is the dredging our harbors and so critical to our commerce, jobs and economies and >> ms. kaptur: i hope the administration is hearing this and they work with us on a better allocation and not invading the harbor maintenance trust fund. i would hate to deny the administration the right to think about this and to make recommendations to us. i don't think it's the gentleman's intent from pennsylvania, congressman kelly, to prevent any oversight or activities by the administration
to better manage the harbor maintenance trust fund. i don't think that is his intent. i think his intent is to assure that these dollars are spent for harbor maintenance but if the administration has a good idea to throw in to help us with that, you wouldn't deny us the right to do that, in asking the gentleman the question. we need their cooperation in order to make this work. mr. nolan: already neglecting the needs for dredging in our harbors and divert the funds from the existing funds would make the situation worst. which is why i rise in support. i know mr. duffy wishes to speak to the amendment. ms. kaptur: he will have to move to strike the last word. congressman kelly, your
intention is not to preclude the administration from working with us on the harbor maintenance trust fund if they have a creative idea that would help us -- >> the whole purpose of this and this money is collected for a specific reason. mr. kelly: i had a conversation with secretary lahood talkic about why can't we use the money that has been collected to be set aside and used. this is about fairness and growing our economy and being able to have access to the entire world. we are letting these harbors -- we aren't dredging them and causing a huge problem. we can't get from point a to point b. we are losing efficiencies for businesses. use the money for the intention
it was collected. it is not being used the right way. we are already missing the boat. no pun intended, but we are closing down these harbors and not doing the right thing. mr. chairman, do you have anything else you want to add. i want mr. duffy a chance to talk. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio -- mr. kelly: i yield back my time. ms. kaptur: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. >> maybe i could address a few of the issues that were brought up from the gentlelady from ohio. i think everyone who supports this amendment is willing to work with the administration if the administration wants to work with us to start to dredge our ports to make sure that we can actually have more flow of commerce through the american
ports that haven't been serviced well. mr. duffy: if the administration wants to tap into the harbor maintenance trust fund and use those for the purposes, you would see a strong objection from those who support this amendment, especially those who live on the great lakes, mr. nolan and i, have the great honor of sharing the duluth port and we understand how important dredging is to making sure that port functions and if we don't have enough resources to service our great port, it gives us great pause because this is great jobs and economic growth. and if we don't have that, we're concerned. if the administration is willing to work with us, we are willing to work with the administration, no doubt. but if they want to take those them for and take another purpose, we would have great cause in pushback because
what you have seen it is funded by the shippers, they pay taxes and fees in the anticipation that those dollars, those revenues are going to be used to service our ports. the problem is it hasn't been used to service our ports. they are paying money into a fund, the last 15 years that has run a surplus. there is $17 billion in the fund and they sit back and wonder, why isn't this money being used for its intended purpose, which is to make sure that american ports work. we paid for it. we've agreed to pay the taxes. now do government what you promised us to do to make sure that we can actually have commerce in our industry. i think it's important the gentleman from pennsylvania talked about the corp. of engineers talking about studies and our shippers having a light load and the great lakes' ports and lake superior, the twin
ports, where they are unable to load at full capacity because we haven't effectively dredged that port. and that is loss of receive news for our shippers and that is driving up the cost of the goods that we are shipping on the great lakes, which means the end consumer is paying more for those goods. this doesn't make a lot of economic sense especially when we have $7 bill quon are surplus in that fund. this is one of those issues where i think government can do a better job serving the people. putting money into a fund, paying taxes to specifically go into a fund for a specific purpose and have that fund raided, robbed and used for a different purpose is unconscionable and not acceptable and that's not what the americans have with their government. it is unfair at best. just to make one last point.
this is a jobs amendment. this amendment will make sure that we can have a growing effective, efficient economy shipping across the country and lower cost have goods because we are effectively using our ports and shippers across this country and would the gentlelady like to yield? ms. kaptur: just for 30 seconds. just to say i'm glad we had this discussion tonight. others have heard it. i think it will help the lake erie, n, and cleveland, lorraine, sandusky and i understand the challenge here. one of our budgetary challenges is we have to have a budget that allocates these dollars and right now, that hasn't come from your side of the aisle. so in order to use these dollars, it has to be incorporated in the budget
resolution that comes to us. our mark was too low in our bill in order to be able to move those dollars. let's work on that with the budget committees so we get that allocation and comes to our subcommittee. and that's something we can work on on both sides of the i'll. mr. duffy: wellpoint made by the gentlelady from ohio. and make sure we are clear, this amendment is one that prohibits additional or expansion of the definition of the use of the harbor maintenance trust fund. we can't use it for other purposes other than the ports which was its intentional purpose. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition?
for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia ek recognition? >> i move madam chair to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rigell: i would like to enter into a colloquy. virginia is home for one of the lagship, thomas jefferson, j-lab located in newport news and its facility there known as the continuous electronic beam facilitator fa -- facility. it values the work at the j-lab that they recommended an upgrade to its accelerator as its number one priority in its 2007 long-range plan for nuclear physics. it has 70% of its construction
funding through the efforts of the subcommittee and work is going to begin there on its commission inin fiscal year 2014, provided that sufficient funding is included in this appropriations measure. i am concerned that the reductions for nuclear physics below the budget request could force unilateral cuts and medium energy nuclear physics operations. and that these reductions could delay the start of the commissioning of the 12 g.e.d. project which is scheduled to start in the first quarter of fiscal year 2014. therefore i'm asking the chairman, if he would be willing to work with me and my colleagues in virginia and others who support the priorities of the nuclear physics community, to work toward completing this important construction project and to begin operations in a timely fashion. mr. frelinghuysen: will the gentleman yield? mr. rigell: yes, certainly.
mr. frelinghuysen: i thank my deleeg for -- colleague for his interest in strong advocacy on behalf of the jefferson lab and for the nuclear physics program. our allocation has made for some tough choices and we borked -- worked hard to fund the office of science at $32 million above current levels, postsequester. this level of funding is sufficient to support a $7.5 million increase for the medium energy nuclear physics program which goes to the jefferson lab. i want to thank my colleague for his advocacy and look forward to working with him to support this vital program through the appropriations process. i also assure my colleague that the bill keeps sea bass on track to begin operations in fiscal year 2014 and i yield back. mr. rigell: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition?
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lamalfa of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to regulate activities identified in subparagraphs a and c of section 404-f-1 of the federal water pollution control act, 33, united states code, 1344-f-1-ac. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, madam chairman. i'm pleased to be able to present this amendment here. thank you to the chairman of the committee for allowing this. we have a situation here where section 404-f-1 of the clean water act exempts certain activities from the permitting requirements under section 404. including normal farming, forestry and ranching
activities and construction maintenance of farm, forest roads, irrigation ditches and farm ponds. in 1977 congress made a deliberate policy choice to amend the clean water act to provide carefully tailored exemptions for these ordinary activities of farmers, ranchers and foresters. from the costly and burdensome requirements to obtain clean water permits. despite this clear expression of congressional intent, however, the corps of engineers and the e.p.a. in recent years have been trying to sir kim vent the -- circumvent the exemptions by attempting to interpret a limited recapture provision in section 404-f-2, in such an expansive way as to virtually swallow up the exemptions in 404-f-1. we have a result where congress clearly provided a regulatory exemption from permitting in one paragraph of the clean water act only to have the corps and e.p.a. now take it away through a creative interpretation of the next
paragraph. the corps and e.p.a. cannot take away administratively what congress gave legislatively. these administrative efforts to undermine congressional intent have resulted in excessive and overzealous efforts to expand regulatory powers into farming and ranching activities exempted from regulation. in one instance, a family farm attempted to convert pasture land irrigated by ditch to a piped irrigation system to improve their water efficiency. a laudable goal from any perspective. this is activity clearly exempted from regulation by section 404-f-1, yet the corps argument that potential run offsfr this work, which would run into a manmade drainage ditch and eventually into a terminal manmade pond, with no outlet, would impact somehow the navigable waterway of the sacramento river which is over six miles away. which really bears no relation to reality, this regulation. this claim by the corps turned a one-day, $2,500 project into
now a multi-year legal battle resulting in over $100,000 in legal costs to the family farm, all with no improvement or protection of the environment. this amendment is sent to make it clear that the corps is not to use any fundses to regulate activities that are already excluded from regulation under 4-f-1 a and c and that the provision in 404-fh 2 is not used to undermine sections of 404-f-1 permitting exemptions. the amendment allows that the permitting exemptions stand on their own merits without the corps and e.p.a. negating their use through clever legal interpretations. in no way does this amendment attack or limit regulation of wetlands or our nation's waterways. as a rancher myself with wetlands, ducks, other wildlife on my land, i know full well the importance and value of reasonable protections for our natural resources. today farms in california and
elsewhere are being targeted for simply changing crops or irrigation methods. they're doing their best to follow every law, the spirit of the law, but are being targeted for something congress exempted. this amendment simply follows -- simply limits funds to ensure that agencies of government only spend money to follow the laws as congress wrote them. i urge all members to please support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman cannot reserve this time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. our colleague from california describes yet another troubling example of what seems to be ederal overreach, regulatory overreach. i support his amendment, which i think addresses the situation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. if the proposed amendment would take effect, the corps would be prohibited from requiring a permit for discharges into waters of the united states from certain agricultural activities. the clean water act already exempts certain agricultural activities from regulation. unless those activities change the flow of navigable waters. then those agricultural activities such as construction of stock ponds or irrigation ditches, construction of forest roads and reconstruction of recently damaged parts of levees, dykes and dams must be regulated. the clean water act already exempts agriculture business from many of the regulations imposed on others. this amendment would take away the commonsense safeguards built into the clean water act to prevent the negative impact of some agricultural
activities. and we have all been witness to some of those. so i believe the clean water act strikes the right balance in giving relief to agricultural businesses already and therefore urge defeat of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act to the united states army corps of engineers may be used for setment or soil dumping into the missouri river. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, madam
chair. we have a situation that exists in iowa, nebraska and missouri that i know, along the missouri river, is an attempt to save the endangered species known as the pallet sturgeon and i brought an example of him here. he's the only one in congressional captivity. this came from the hatchery at the u.s. fish and wildlife by the way. but what they're doing is an attempt to create shallow water habitats, so this sturgeon can reproduce, they're opening up bows and ection that's all right. but what they're doing is dredging millions of cubic yards of dredge spoil out of those old channels into the river channel itself. and we know the dredge spoil is listed under the clean water act as a toxic pollutant. they wouldn't let farmers do it, they wouldn't let contractors do it. the corps of engineers doesn't need to. they have better alternatives that are consistent with the clean water act. so my amendment simply says, none of the funds can be used to dredge this into the river and they would need to follow their own rules like everybody else does and i urge the
adoption of the amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek rec? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman, i don't have any objection to the amendment, though i do have a few concerns which i'd like to cover. first of all, i want to thank my colleague for bringing these issues to our attention. if in fact the corps' actions are detrimental to flood control efforts in his region, those types of actions need to be stopped and i'd happy to work with him to do that. i do believe of course that some of these issues would be better dealt with by the authorizing committees that have jurisdiction over the corps and the endangered species act. so i think there are some concerns that we have that are legitimate here. we're going to do some more investigation and work with the gentleman to see if we can address his concerns. i yield back the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: the king amendment would provide no funds to be used for shallow water habitat construction. if that involves sediment or soil dumping into the missouri river. in order to meet the obligations established within the 2003 amended biological opinion, the construction of shallow water habitat is an integral part of compliance. there are two ways to build shallow water habitats, either through flow actions or through mechanical actions. the corps has been implementing habitat construction to avoid manipulating flows, mainly because of concerns expressed by the state of missouri. this amendment would prevent the construction of shallow water habitat, leaving the sturgeon fish unprotected. i understand that farmers in iowa have concerns that the army corps is not creating these habitats in an ecological manner. but the army corps studies show
there will only be minimal increases in nutrients carried by the river during project construction. if the corps cannot put sediment into the missouri river, it will have to dispose of the sediment in upland areas. there will be increased costs for each construction project, disposal in upland areas would increase costs by requiring material to be placed in trucks and hauled offsite to upland disposal areas or placed adjacent to the habitat projects. project costs would be increased by 300% to 500% depending on site specifics. so disposing of the sediment in upland areas will also result in increased negative environmental impabblets -- impacts. disposal of material in upland areas will require disturbances of existing mitigation sites and increases the risk of damage to adjacent wetlands. it may also require additional land acquisition for disposal areas. for all these reasons, we have
to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to yield to my colleague from iowa. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding. and i regret i didn't have that opportunity to sit down and talk to the gentlelady from ohio regarding this dredging that's taking place in the missouri river bottom in my district, in my neighborhood, where i've spent my lifetime working on that river bottom. and doing work like dredge work and dredge site work and dredge disposal site work. we've done a number of projects and with the earth-moving site of this thing, working with conjunction with contractors, i've been up and down every mile of this river for decades now. i've watched what they're doing. they would never let a private interest do what they are doing. they wouldn't let a public interest do what they were doing. only the corps of engineers can do what they're doing. and i've not reviewed these numbers closely but i did hear
it could be a 300% increase in the cost. i'd like to look at it more closely. i'm pretty confident king construction can bid that substantially cheaper, however we're not in the business of advocating what we do here in this congress. the corps of engineers has also put out numbers higher than the actual cost necessary and it's pretty simple to me that if you can see what i saw last week, a 20-inch pipe pumping out water and dredge spoil that's churned up by the beater effect of the dredge, pumping that out into the middle of the river where the sediment distribute heavy stuff drops out right away. it starts to fill the channel, the lighter stuff goes down the river and gets settled out and then the river has to be dredged again. they're putting that sediment in the river. it doesn't make it to new orleans, out into the gulf of mexico. and it ends up having to be treated again. there's plenty of places for them to do this. they are contradicting their own policy. and so i urge the adoption of this amendment and let's hold the corps of engineers accountable the same way they hold everybody every -- everyone else accountable and i
yield back to the gentleman rom california as i thank him. mr. lamalfa: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back thefplg question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. amendment number one. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the national ocean policy developed under executive order number 13547 of july 19, 2010, 75 fed
the coast elating to and great lakes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. in flores: last year -- mr. floor rest: last year, the house adopted my amendment that would prohibit ocean zoning related to the obama administration's national ocean policy under executive order 13547. executive order 13547 was signed in 2010 and requires that various bureaucracy zone the ocean and the sources thereof. this essentially means that a drop of rain that funals your house could be subject to this overreaching policy because that presippings -- that precipitation will wind up in the ocean. concerns have been raised by
many groups that the national ocean policy will restrict ocean and inland activities. it is also worrisome that the administration has not made any requests for funds for this effort, nor has congress appropriated any money for this purpose. we have had hearings in the natural resources committee and no agency has told us from what source they're receive, getting the funding for this initiative system of where is the funding coming from? are they raid -- -- are they raiding existing accounts and raiding dollars from existing statutory responsibilities? on this chart, you can see that this executive order creates a huge bureaucracy at a time when we're trying to make the government smaller, more efficient, more accountable an less intrusive. the next chart lists the 63 agencies involved in this effort to try to zone the oceans. this looks like much more than a planning exercise at this point. let me say that you're going to hear from the other side from time to time something that says that planning is good.
yes, planning may be good. planning with the intent to affect a back door, nonstatutory rule making is not good. and here's what the executive order states on its face. it says, all executive departments, agencies and offices that are members of the council and any other executive department agency or office whose actions afingt the ocean or coast and great lakes shall to the extent consistent with applicable law comply with council certified coastal and marine spatial planning. that sounds like rule making to me that has not been authorized by statute. it's important to note that ocean zoning was debated in the 108th, 109th, 110th and 111th congress and each of those congresses determined that this action was not necessary. this clearly indicates that congress explicitly does not intend for the oceans to be zoned in the manner that the president is attempting to do so. thus executive order 13547 has
no specific statutory authority and there have been no appropriations by congress to pay for the cost of this new bureaucracy. my similar amendment earlier this year passed by a bipartisan vote to have 233-190 to the offshore package we considered last month. this was adopted on a bipartisan basis as part of the f.y. 2013 c.j.s. appropriations bill. i urbling my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise to oppose stress the t and to mportance of ocean policy.
the harmful algal blooms, the puget sound and throughout our nation's waterway the national ocean policy would help us awe gress the threats to our aquatic ecosome from overfishing, stormwater runoff and bar emissions and other pollutants entering our waterways. the ocean policy will help protect, maintain and restore our oceans and coastal ecosystems which provide important jobs, food, recreation and which serve as the foundation far substantial part of our nation's economy. only healthy, functioning, marine ecosomes can support the fisheries we all depend upon so heavy -- heavily. there are some reports that show this over half of the fish in the oceans have been fished out. if you go to any supermarket, you'll find on the shelves, fish that are there, strange names you have never heard
before because the varieties that were plentiful are fished out forever. the corps approach -- the core approach oaf national ocean policy to -- is to improve stewardship of the oceans and lakes by having the departments coordinate and work better together. it creates no new authorities, it's about increased coordination among existing agent sthirks sort of effect that should be taking place in order to reduce inefficient way west and -- inefficiency, waste, and redundancy. this is an issue of bringing people together so all the ocean's users, including recreational and commercial fibbere -- fishermen, can better plan for, manage, harmonize an sustain uses of oceans and coastal resources. when you think about it, we now have 310 million people in our country. we look at the global populations in the billions. with the rate of population
increase rising, more and more fishing going on, and how many of us come from regions where we see that fisheries have shut down? that in fact what used to exist in massachusetts exists no more. that there are places on the west coast where the fisheries that had been there are shut down. that's because there's so much draw on that life source in the ocean that we have to pay attention as a world how we are going to see the general -- feed the generations of the future. his is not a casual engagement , this is down right serious business. and i would say that the gentleman's amendment is not forward-looking. i don't know what he has in mind here. but the better we understand what is going on and what congressman claude pepper used to call planet ocean where 70% of our earth is actually water,
much of it impinged now by pollutants and so forth, we have a responsibility to the globe. and this is not simple. prior generations haven't had to think this way but we have to think this way because there are many more draws on these resources and look at the problems we have had with some countries going out and doing the fishing and just taking fish to one country and not allowing other fishermen to have equal access etch in the great lakes that i represent -- even in the great lakes that i represent, it's amazing, every single year the number of fish you're allowed to catch goes down because we've got more fishermen because population is increasing, but there are fewer fish to draw from those lakes. and there are substantial threats in the form of invasive species system of the gentleman and i are on different sides of this i think it's porn to understand the oceans.
to coordinate among our agencies. to put the best intelligence forward. because the globe is changing and we have to be smart enough to deal with those ecosome changes. thank you so very much and i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman from texas has an amendment. the clerk will report. the chair: amendment offered by mr. flores of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the fund made available by this act may be used to implement, minister, or enforce section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007 public law 110-140, 42 united states code 17142.
the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. flores: thank you, madam chair. i rise to offer an amendment which addresses another misguided federal regulation, section 526 of the energy independence and security acts prohibits agencies from entering into contracts for fuels unless their life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to that of traditional sources. my amendment would stop this ban on all federal agencies funned by the energy and water development appropriations bill. the initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the defense department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal to liquid jet fuel. this was based on the opinion of some environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel may produce more greenhouse gas emotions than traditional petroleum. however, one of the unintended
consequences is that it essentially forces the american military to acquire fuel refined from unstable mideast crude resources. furthermore, section 526's ban on fuel choices now afingts all federal agencies, not just the defense department. this is why i'm offering this amendment again today to the energy and water appropriations bill. the american military and our federal agencies should not be burdened with waste their time studying fuel restribs when there's a simple fix and that fix is to not restrict federal government fuel choices based on unsound policies and misguided regulations like those in section 526. section 526 also essentially makes our nation more dependent on mideast oil. stopping the impact of section 526 will help taos promote american energy, grow the american economy, create american job, and become more energy secure. madam chair, it is also important to know what this amendment does not prevent and
does not restrict and it doesn't restrict or prevent the ability of the federal government from purchasing any alternative fuels including biodiesel, ethanol, or other fuels from renewable resources. it places no restrictions whatsoever on those types of procurements. i offer this amendment to the homeland security appropriations bills, several appropriations bills in the 112th congress and they all passed on the floor of the house with strong bipartisan support. my friend, mr. conaway, also added similar language to the latest defense authorization bill to exempt the defense department from this burdensome regulation. i urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment and i yield back the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman yooleds back the balance of his time. the question -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the
gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bridenstine of oklahoma. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this kt act may be used by the corps of engineers to set water storage prices for municipal use. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. bridenstine: thank you, madam chair. i rise today tufere an amendment that will provide temporary relief for communities who will otherwise be hit by some of the sharpest increases in water storage proices ever -- prices ever seen. my amendment is simple, it prohibits the army corps of engineer from setting storage prices on any nonhydropower
lake built by the corps they feel corps would only be able to set the same rates on local communs when the lake was completed a dollar figure that's well documented and not subject to interpretation by the corps. a source of fund for the operation lakes funded by the corps of engineers is derived from water contracts with municipalities. the pricing for storage on corps lakes is defined as curn cost this creates a prohibitive financial burden on citizens of municipalities desiring to contract with the corps and the corps does not receive income, any income for the operation and maintenance of the lake. the flawed methodology threatens to rise from six cents to nearly dollar and raises the total
impact of water from 1.6 million to $24 million a year. earlier this year, the senate adopted by unanimous consent an amendment by senator inhofe to the bill that requires the g.a.o. to complete a study on the flawed methodology. the -- as the bill develops through the house, i'm looking forward to working with my colleagues on a solution to replace that outdated formula that is reasonable and fair. we can provide one more year of certainty and assurance for communities like bart willsville and not see increases and they can't afford. the american taxpayers spend billions of dollars to fund the operations of the army corps, but we can ensure none of those
funds are used to enforce a formula that is outdated, unfair and unjust as we move through the water bill and other avenues toward a long-term solution. i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. the amendment is not in order under section 3-d-3 of the house resolution 5, 113th congress, which states it shall not be in order to consider amendment to a a general appropriations bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment proposing an equal or greater decrease pursuant to clause f of rule 21. it proposes a net increase. the congressional budget office has stated that this amendment
has cost associated with it. the current pricing policy is based upon i quote, updated costs of storage unquote, which reflects today's value indexed to current price levels rather than at the original construction cost price levels. so reverting to construction cost levels will unavoidbly have a cost with the net effect increasing the level of budget authority. in the bill. under section 3-d-3, an increase in budget authority must be accompanied by an equal or greater decrease. this amendment does not contain it and violates section 3-d-3. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order. if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from new jersey makes a point order that the
amendment violation section 3-23. section 3-3-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment opposing a net increase. the chair has been guided by an estimate from the chair of the committee on the budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: i move to strike the last word. i rise only to say thank you to chairman of the subcommittee, mr. frelinghuysen, who has been in this seat now for 38 days, seems like, but the entire time of this bill he has not taken a break for any reason during the entire consideration of these dozens of amendments and general debate and i want to thank the
chairman for doing a great job during this debate, but also in drafting the bill along with marcy kaptur the ranking member. we thank you for a job well done and thank you for persevering through all of this. also, i want to say a word of thanks to the staff who see demb so much credit for the work that has been before the body the last two days. rob blair, the clerk of the subcommittee and all of the ki has worked long and hard to bring this bill to the floor and to transpose it to the population of the house. so we thank you for a great job well done. as we near the end of the deliberation on the amendments and final vote on the bill, i urge everyone to vote for the bill. this is a good bill. it cuts spending, does the nation's business and fair and
transparent. and i urge the adoption of the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment by mr. whitfield of kentucky, amendment by mr. fleming of louisiana, amendment number 28 by mr. garamendi of ms. rnia, amendment by speier. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, on which further proceedings were postponed and which on the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redeath the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. whitfield of kentucky.
the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is risen. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
rks he chair: the yeas are 94, the nays are 329 and the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request on the recorded vote on the gentleman from from louisiana on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 230, the nays are 1 4. the amendment is adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. garamendi on which further proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate. e clerk: amendment number 28 printed in the professional congressional record offered by mr. garamendi. the chair: a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 170, the nays are 253. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. speer orange which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes preintrailedvose vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment -- the clerk: amendment offered by ms. speer of california. the chair: a recorded vote has een requested. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vet, the yeas are 174, the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopt. the unfinished bids is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, on which further proceed wrgs postponed orange which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the
amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. chabot of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request rise recorded vote will and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 147, the nays are 273. the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: this act may be cited as the energy and water development and related agencies appropriation act 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do rise and reminority bill back to the house with sundry amendment and -- amendments and with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and the bill as amended to pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopt asmede ordingly, the committee rises. -- is adopted.
accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having ad under consideration h.r. 26 9, reports me to report it back to the house and that the bill as amend bd passed. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h r. 2609 and reports the bill back to the house with the recommendation the bill be adopted and the bill as amended do pass. under house resolution 288, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported if the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them
engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. he amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 130e79, 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> thank you, madam speaker. i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the opposed to the bill?
>> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. schneider of illinois moves to recommit the bill -- mr. schneider: i ask madam speaker consent to suspend reading of the motion. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. thank you, madam speaker, for the time. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. i move to -- i rise tufere this motion to recommit to ensure first that the great lakes and mississippi are protected from the continued threat of invasive species including and particularly taking practical steps to address the threat of asian carp to our fish,
tourism, and navigation on our nation's inland waterways. second, that we provide the resources necessary to combat invasive aquatic plant growth that threaten our national fishery, wildlife, and communities. and third, that we continue to look out for our coastal communities to help them recover from natural disasters prevent roactively future threat. the underlying bill represents a historic di vestment in american
investments to safeguard our communities and improve our nation's navigable waterway, bill overemphasizes we must not use the guise of fiscal prudence as an excuse to block important investments in alternative energy and basic research in our economy or to block important investments in infrastructure projects to improve our inland waterways and improve the potentially devastating consequences or to block investment in weatherization assistance to help our most vulnerable populations. this bill constitutes a generational aban conditionment of our communities and children who will have to face the stark realtail of the decisions made here today including a significant rollback of the clean water act. the proposed amendment does not address all the concerns i have with the underlying bill but will at least help to improve the bill moving forward. the -- asian carp continue to devastate fish stock and must be addressed by a holistic government approach that
partners with states to utilize best practices. this amendment would encourage partnership with the states while providing funding to meaningfully address and prevent the outbreck of invasive species. similarly the pollution and runoff to our waterways contributed to an overabundance of aquatic plant life that choke vital nutrients from our systems. this amendment takes a more practical approach to limiting the cause of the overgrowth and improving our waiter quality. the underlying bill also fails to address the continuing needs of coastle -- coastal communities affected by flooding an other natural disasters. this amendment would aid in addressing critical vulnerabilities of communities facing severe economic impact from flooding while prioritizing prompts that will help safeguard human life. would help the
cooperative research being performed by the unions and state of israel. we have partnered with israel in developing scientific, business and contribute positively to the energy sectors to the u.s. and israel. this amendment continues that long partnership and capitalizes on our joint research capacities to emerge best practices for mfrling while efficiently utilizing taxpayer money to benefit both our nations. the essential provisions of this amendment will only improve the juvend lying bill and contributing to job growth and protecting our natural resources. i urge my colleagues to support these commonsense changes. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the house has worked its will over the past two days and all in all dozens of amendments have been considered under an open process. this bill strengthens natural security and forces an important economy and keeps america open for business and promotes job opportunities and we do all this hile making our tough spending decisions saving $2.9 billion over last year's enacted level. we have the time to act. now is the time to pass our government funding bills. i urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and support the bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection the previous question is ordered on the
motion to recommit. the question is on the recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. . pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five minute-vote will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill and approval of the journal if ordered. five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 195, the nays are 230. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill under clause 10, rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,
the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> madam speaker. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham, and co-sponsor to house joint resolution 51. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1rk the house will stand in
come subcommittee will to order. today we're examining the treasury department's strangely timed announcement that it's delaying the enforcement of obama care employer mandate for one year. we've heard the white house pledge that the affordable care act will be ready on schedule, absolutely take it to the bank. in fact it was said before this committee that the white house would not miss another oboob
care deadline. shortly thereafter the nation learned to have this major pillar of the new law in place on schedule. obama care is simply not ready. this committee has serious questions about how and why this alarming decision was made and the effect in delaying this key provision will have on other provisions of the law specifically the direct they've individuals purchase government approved healthcare or pay a tax. there are questions about the manner in which it was announced on an obscure treasury blog two days before the fourth of july holiday. we invited treasury officials to testify today to explain the rational for the delay and how they announced this setback. however they declined to appear. this committee intends to get
an explanation and will plan on treasury officials appearing at a date in the near future. let's also be clear about what this decision means this. doesn't solve the problems of local businesses struggling to comply with obama care. the consequences of the mandate still remain. employers are still required to provide coverage or pay a substantial tax. many businesses continue to cut worker's hours and pay checks as they try to meet the affordable care act definition of a full time employee. many are trying to find for money for rising healthcare cost for themselves and workers as cost increase and jobs are still at risk. up to 3.2 million in the franchise industry alone as local companies struggle with the obama care requirements. for patients, families and their children though you have to wonder if obama care isn't
ready for business, is it ready for my family. a lot of lives are at stake. quality healthcare is critical. the white house has missed almost every key deadline in this healthcare law for individuals and families as well. the white house says it's listening to the concerns of our nation's businesses. but are they ignoring the voices of american families and taxpayers? unlike businesses and labor unions which have been granted a reprieve there has been no delay of the individual mandate forcing americans to buy insurance or pay a tax. these families and individuals are facing higher cost in premiums. they have no relief from the new taxes. today three years after the passage of the healthcare law, majority of americans disapprove of this law. so who is listening to them? if the government mandate to
buy insurance has been postponed for businesses and labor unions, out of fairness shouldn't it be postponed for individuals and families as well? while the white house continues to suggest obama care will be ready the mandate calls that into question. look at the pattern of delays and failures that have occurred since implementation began. the class act proved unworkable and was abandonned. the 1099 reporting mandate was repealed. the exchanges promises for small business failed to be ready and were delayed. parts of law were found unconstitutional. 34 states have chosen not to build exchanging. the hub of obama care is not ready. the grants have not gone out to local communities. on and on the list is growing as we get closer to october
16789 clearly the rollout of obama care is in disarray and experts are questioning whether the white house is confident enough toster its own healthcare law. it could have profound impact on the federal budget and raises numb russ questions. how many more people end up or be forced into the exchanges? without reporting requirements how can we ensure subsidies are only going to those without offers of affordable insurance? it's unfortunate that no treasury officials are here today to answer these questions. the american people, congress and this committee deserve these answers and we will get them. we do know obama care is making healthcare more expensive. costing americans their jobs, shrinking their pay checks and preventing americans from keeping the healthcare they have and like.
instead of enforcing certain provisions of obama care, it's clear this law must be re350e8d. >> i ask unanimous consent all written statements be included in the record. mcdermett nize dr. for his opening statement. >> i suppose we can about how and why the policy was changed and announced. i might have preferred a itcht different approach but it's not my job to speculate on best practices for the white house. it's our job to continue to shape and guide reform so that it best serves the american people. to focus on policy not politics. there has been a lot of noise about what this shift means but nobody knows. i didn't spend my fourth of july coming over the implications of the change and
i doubt there is anybody that did. i'm trying to digest this on the back of a galloping horse before we properly consider it. we're back in session two days and here we are having a hearing on something that was announced before the fourth. i'm sure it's tempts for those who have stood against reform from the beginning to see this as a chance to rip obama care apart again yet another time. the irony of objecting to the delay of a program you've been trying to stop is no doubt lost on this room. we're going to get a 38th vote shartly to repeal it. you know where one half of this room is coming from. obama care is largely uneffect t by the delay. it was built on current coverage and fill in the gaps. the employer responsibility requirements are just a piece of that puzzle that make up
universal coverage. the marketplace exchanges are on track to open march 16789 my state is well out there. they are raring to go. there are many places in this country who have geared up for this. places like texas haven't, that's another issue. premium file rgs coming in lower than expected in washington, cal and cspan.org 2014 filings show premiums slashed by as much as 35%. reality dramatically contradict it is rhetoric that you hear in here. we don't know exactly what the landscape will look like in january. but it is entirely possible this decision will actually help consumers. employees who remain uncovered will be able to find assistance through tax credits in the federal marketplace or state exchange. the delay will give businesses
time to adjust and for the community to work out the most efficient and effective way to comply with the law. employers the plorse -- employers who offer coverage, we believe they will continue to do so. microsoft, boeing, they are not going to stop offering to their people. massachusetts saw no drop in coverage under romney care. in fact, employer coverage has actually increased slightly. more importantly it's better for us to delay this and get it right than to rush and get it wrong. i'd like to put it in context here. in 1966 when i was in the beginning of my medical practice, medicare workers were traveling door to door trying to enroll seniors. with 100 million leaflets that
were printed before the bill was signed into law. they were up and running and got a jump start. they printed it without appropriate yated funds. and usually those doors were slammed in their face. the american medical association denounced the program and agency administrators wondered if hospitals would be overrun with the sick and elderly patients stretching out for blocks. you can read this in the history. this is what was going on in 1966. the bureau of health insurance began operating without oversight and without regard to formal requirements of rule making simply hoping things would fall into place. 47 years later medicare is the bedrock of our social safety net. it is the standard barer of a government that works. a big part of what saved us then was everyone was working
together to get it off the ground. congress intentionally wrote flexible conditions and the administration was allowed to make changes as they saw fit. they were willing to take chances to ensure success. efore we burn the bridge behind us. nothing that happens today is going to make any difference. let's remember to whom we are accountable. it's not pollsters or cable news ank course or the president's campaign team. our only job in this committee is to fulfill the promise to american citizens of affordable healthcare. we're having this hearing to hear from you why this isn't going to work. that's what it's all about. the supposition of this hearing is that it's all over. it's dead. let's see if that's true. i yield back the balance of my
time. >> today we'll hear from five witnesses. mr. roy, you're recognized for five minutes. >> chairman, ranking member and members of the health subcommittee. thank you for having me speak today about the affordable care act employer mandate. i'm a senior fellow at the manhattan institute for research. in my remarks today i'll focus on three questions. first, does the employer mandate help the affordable
care act achieve its goals? second, what are the ramifications of the white house's decision to delay the mandate by one year? third, what would be the policy impact of hr 903 the american job protection act which would repeal the mandate in its entirety? while the affordable care act strives to achieve many things is primary goal is to move the united states as close as possible to universal health insurance coverage. does the mandate help achieve this goal? my view is that it does not. according to the medical expenditure panel survey, 97% irms with 50 or more workers offer health benefits. that's not 100%. not all firms that offer coverage offer it to every employee. t the mandate preversely
incentivizes employees to hire low income workers, precisely the type of workers who tend to be uninsured. as the center on budget priorities put it in 2009 affected firms would pay a tax for hiring people from low or moderate income families. mandates are triggered if they are not offered what is deemed affordable coverage and they gain coverage on an exchange. as a result employers have three incentives. first to hire fewer full time workers. second to offer unaffordable coverage for which the penalties are lore or high illegal immigrants who are not eligible for subsidies. low income individuals would be able to gain subsidized health insurance but they will be
tagged with a scarlet s for gaining thodse subsidies because to the employees that will be far more costly than hiring unsubsidized once. a one year delay disease give the administration more time to implement the law. but it does not alter the incentives i've described. it gives plorse a year to structure their work forces accordingly. it does impact other provisions though. in order to gain subsidies an individual must prove he has not been offered affordable coverage from his employer. now that the reporting requirements of the employer mandate have been delayed it may be difficult for him to establish that. hence it appears cms will rely on the honor system to dispense subsidies in some cases. similarly the mandate only
works if the government can full whornt a worker is time or part time and whether he's been offered affordable coverage or not at all. it is a bipartisan bill that was introduced last february and referred to this committee. it would repeal the employer mandate by striking the really vant sections. repealing the employer mandate would encourage a transition away from costly inefficient employer sponsored coverage and towards portable individually owned insurance policies. economists have long advocated for this transition and repealing the employer mandate would go a long way in achieving it.
some analysts have raised concerns that such a transition would be costly due to the increased spending on exchange subsidies that would result. however in march 2012 the cbo estimated that if an additional 14 million workers move the deficit would decrease over ten years. this is because the increase is off set by a reduction in lost revenue from the tax exclusion for insurance. it will be important for hr 903 to be adjusted to take into account subsidies on the individual mandate. the individual mandate could be replaced with a open e enrollment period. this would achieve the mandate's goal of curbing adverse selection without the constitutional injury. i will conclude by recalling
that scarlet s. want an economy which those at the bottom of the ladder can find good employment and healthcare. we should repeal it. thank you again for having me. i have included three articles from forbes in which i further expand on these issues. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman and ranking members thank you for the opportunity to be here today. he decision to abandon for 2014 were only announced last week. it will take some additional time before the full implications are known. nonetheless in my testimony i will try to provide some initial observations about what they might mean. technically the administration did not announce delay in the employer mandate. what was announced was a one year delay in reporting
requirements. the administration noted that the delay in collecting the relevant data would mean a delay in determining which plorse ode payments. thus the structure was put off for a year through the back door of an administrative decision to not collect information. some have questioned the legal authority to take this action. certainly clear that what is administration is doing is not consistent with the statute. congress put in place a mandate to enforce it in 20 14rks not 2015. i am not a lawyer. i will leave it to others whether they can stretch the meaning of the words to justify what they are doing. no one has disputed that it is clearly inconsistent with what congress intended. the employer mandate is flawed policy. it is harm to feel low income workers and job growth. the structure of the mandate
effects on employment are well known and were obvious before enactment. not surprisingly firms are adjusting to stay beneath the 50 worker flesh tholed. hat's not what we need in this economy. powerful insent ives for employers to hire lower income workers. for instance if you're a restaurant and you have the option of hiring a worker you're going to pay low wages to from a middle class neighborhood or lower class neighborhood you might pick the middle claste class because they would be he has likely to draw subsidies and induce a penalty on the employer. the law exempts part time workers from the penalty structure and establishes 30 hours a week for part time.
we've seen story after story ability firms adjusting and local governments adjusting to push their workers below this 30 hour per week threshold. in addition it was known in advance the employer mandate as designed would be terribly urden some to enforce. it would be an immense hassle on the administrative front. last week's announcement made it clear that was right. the decision not to enforce the mandate does not alter these problematic effects. employers that are today hesitant to hire workers to go above the 50 woorker flesh hold or move their workers above 30 hours per week aren't going to turn their plans upside down based on a one year delay. there will be significant budgetary consequences. cbo estimated that the employer
penalties would generate $20 million based on reporting in 2014. it's hard to imagine they will collect that now. it's quite clear the whole structure for enforcing the employer requirements thazz been put into question. they say it's unworkable and totally it will never generate the income it was supposed to generate. cbo estimate they assumed $140 fwl in these payments. does anyone believe we will collect that kind of money on something that is so controversial. in some instances in the exchanges is very likery to result in eronenouse payments. in 2012 according to the inspector general for tax administration the federal government paid out $13.6 billion in eroneyouse payments.
a system that has data checks and has been in place for two decades and has lots of enforcement built into it and less complicated than the premium credits in the healthcare law. relying on the honor system is likely to result in large scale eroneyouse immaterial payments. the delay is an invitation to congress to revisit the law too. i would urge this committee and congress to consider statutory delay of the mandate. a delay in the individual 3457b date and a strong look at delaying the entire exchange ocess until it's clear the data system protect taxpayers. >> >> when you are ill prepared as a general rule it's advise to
believe delay, postpone or even cancel. in this case small biz people, small biz owners certainly are receptive to the delay. there has been no information or certainly inadequate information for them to make the decisions which are necessary to operate under this program. the delay however changes nothing. just kind of delays it, moves it back a year. including small business rid sans to hire and to invest. exception of course is the i did minute shd confidence and ability in the administration, in this administration to get something of this size done correctly or even to do it at all. let's assume for a moment that everything gets straightnd out next week, there is guidance and rules and that sort of thing. that isn't going to happen but let's make that assumption.
small business still has a major information problem. small business owners get their information generally through secondary channels. secondary channels are accountant, lawyers, web sites of trade associations and so on and so forth. that means in order to new mexico it's a two step process. have you to educate the educators and they will inturn educate the population. so quiet frankly if we're looking at 2015, january 1, to have to oing hustle to get them out to
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captions performed by national captioning institute] >> 55% of small businesses have at least some salaried employees. they are not keeping hours now. they don't have systems in place. they would not normally have systems in place to do this. workly, if we are going to these people on an hourly basis, they are going to have to have hourly records, which is a massive new records keeping problem. the determination of affordability is number three. i'm not really sure what to say, because we never had any rules proposals. it looks like it may be difficult. who knows. so that's really up in the air. is the business
aggregation rules. and this is the sleeper. this is the one that i think has huge significance. and that's for two reasons. many owners have more than one business. many businesses have more than one owner. so what combination or combings -- combinations counts as a single entity? now we get to the second problem. this has been answered by putting these combinations under the erisa rules. the erisa rules are some of the most complicated rules known to man kind. in fact, there is only a small egment of the legal population employee bifflet group that can even interpret this. so here you have as many as 100,000 businesses needing some type of interpretation or understanding or whatever, and only a very, very small
community is going to be there to satisfy that. finally, lastly, five, the mandate per se is irrelevant. it is tied to health insurance. it ties health insurance to ement employment. we should be going exactly in the opposite direction. we are freezing the past when we should be looking to the future. >> thank you, mr. dennis. mr. paul, you are recognized. >> chairman brady, ranking member mcdermott and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i believe my role as a franchise small business owner gives me a unique perspective that is not heard often enough in washington. franchise small businesses have been particularly affected by the affordable care act. i hope to express the concerns of myself and that of our industry as a whole.
my name is sean falk and i open and operate 12 franchise units. as a former united states marine, i understand the demand for hard work. as a business owner, i have the luxury of working any 80 hours of the week i choose. with 43 full-time employees, i am a proud participant in a diverse community that supports nearly 18 million jobs. you may recognize some of the businesses i operate. great american cookies, mrs. pretzel okies, and maker. i bought my first franchise in 1988, and on average i was opening more than one location per year. i am also a member of the international franchise association, and i'm here today to represent the association and the entire franchise community. government actions play an
important role in my decisions. as a business owner, i can't make future business plans with countless regulations with only one year at a time or changes within six months before implementation. while my fellow small business owners and i applaud the ememployer mandate, due to the continued ambiguity of the law and its compliance requirements, it does not solve the fundamental problems associated with the a.c.a. and its impact on business operations and future job growth. we have to plan well in advance for significant changes in the law. receiving key regulations less than three months before a new retirement goes in effect does not provide ample time for employers and small business owners to successfully adapt their businesses to remain economically stable. imfleementation --
implementation of the affordable care act has been very time consuming. combersome law has taken much of my time. whether it is in 2014 or 2015, all of these tasks take me away from my core mission of growing my business. and there are very few small businesses to -- there are very few government representatives to guide small business owners through this process. there are things the government can do to help small businesses. number one, increase the threshold that qualifies an employee as full-time to 40 hours a week. second, increase the full-time
threshhold that is required for full-time employees. currently, i employ 33 full-time equivalent employees. if my business grows and i change jobs, i will also drastically increase my cost due to the ememployer mandate. this has an an undenyable impact on my bottom line, which is my livelihood. also, i may be forced to reduce my employees' work so they do not require full-time status when i do expand. with these challenges and changes, i am concerned it may be a struggle just to keep the door open on my current businesses. i would relish the opportunity to grow my business, but the recent government regulatory burdens placed on my small business and the current economic climate have given me reason for cause. have to weigh the pros and
cons of the a.c.a. before making decisions. i hope you will address the burdenens small business owners face within the owner mandate, henever it is implemented. it is time to address these challenges facing small business -- keeping some on the sidelines, and affecting small business owners. > thank you. >> thank you for this opportunity to address you today. >> you have now heard 25 minutes of criticism of the affordable care act and i have five minutes to respond. i will try to confine my remarks. ofjanuary 13, 2013, millions
uninsured americans became coverage under the affordable care act. these are the premium tax credits which make this care affordable to lower and middle income americans, expanded medicaid for lower income americans, which in spite of the supreme court decision will still extend medicaid to millions this year. provisions that affect americans from preexisting conditions and being charged higher premiums. the individual responsibility premiums that ask americans who can't afford insurance to purchase it and pay a tax, and finally the ememployer mandate which requires large employers to offer affordable and adequate coverage to their full-time , theyees under tax penalty public will incur for covering their employees. 95% of employers already offered
health coverage. the disparite mandate is there to encourage cooperation. on january 13, 2013, the treasury department announced it was delaying for one year the requirements. treasury had heard from businesses, and i think we have heard this morning, that they eeded more time to comply. because it is impossible to im pleement without enforcement, enforcement was delayed. there is an effective date of 14. ary 13, 20 in the same manner, penalty under chapter 68 of the internal revenue code.
and the i.r.s. frequently abates -- the i.r.s. claims authority under section 7805 and points to a long history of republican and democratic administrations delaying implementation of tax provisions and time and resources that made immediate implementation impractical. the second question is whether delay jeopardizes the implementation of other a.c.a. requirements, particularly premium tax credits. the law was never intended, and exchanges were never intended to rely on ememployer reports, which are supplied long after tax credits are granted to determine an politic -- an applicant's advantage. they certainty out information needed for determining ndividual eligibility.
it is described in my written testimony. much of our tax reporting system is an honor system. this is not an honor system. false reporting carries a $250,000 fine and it is a elony. the moritorium should allow employers to adjust i.t. systems to make reporting possible in 2015. in the meantime, employers will know how many of their employees if any are getting premium tax credit and have an opportunity to make sure they are in compliance by 2015. there is little evidence that employers will rush to exit assistance. all the many reasons employers have for offering coverage today will continue to exist, and the lack of one more incentive is
not going to drive them to drop coverage. finally, the implementation of the a.c.a. congress in 2010 gave the administration an enormous task. preserving our current employment and private based system while modifying it to help all americans. they have made that pass k more difficult by starving of the resources needed to do this task. the most important reforms, the premium tax credits and the exchanges, will be fully functional by january 1, 2014, and i know of no evidence to the contrary. delaying the less essential ememployer mandates will make the administration's job easier not harder, and is likely to minimize potential confusion for employers and employees alike. if you actually care whether a.c.a. will help, take action.
if you are not willing to help with the job of a.c.a. implementation, you have no standing to complain of delays. thank you. >> you talk about fairness. the ememployer mandate is going to be delayed. it would only seem fair that the individual mandate is thrade as well. u talk about threatening tax enalties for uninsured employees. can you explain why you feel that way? employees ays that must sign up through their insurers or face a penalty of $95 or 1% of their household income. that would be enforced in their taxes through what they are filing in taxes probably early in 2015.
look at the situation we have now where we have many employees not getting an offer of coverage from their ememployer because the ememployer requirement is has now been suspended for a year. moreover, we don't know if they were offered coverage through their ememployer. moreover, in many exchanges throughout the country, in at least one plan being offered, at least two plans being offered, the choices are going to be quite limited, is that the circumstances on which you want to start focusing on many lower income families but not signing up for coverage. they made the judgment that the ememployer system was not ready to be enforced in 201314. it is quite obvious to me that it was not ready to be enforced in 2014. i would absolutely urge the committee and the congress that if you are going to delay one, you should delay both. >> thank you, mr. roy.
obama care is not ready for our businesses, is it ready for families? let's assume it is your family, our child, bill, is obama care ready for your family in your opinion? >> no. i would not only echo mr. capretta's points, but i would point out that the cost of coverage on the a.c.a. is going to be much higher than what currently exists in the current health care system. not only are we requiring that insurance and families purchase health coverage, we are requiring them to buy coverage that is in many cases two to three times the cost than it is today. >> so for some their health care costs will go up dramatically. >> that's correct. >> you weren't here a few years ago in the committee. you are hearing rewritten today. a few years ago, the ememployer mandate was touted as one of the twin pillars of obama care in which this new law depends.
and everybody, republicans on this dais, to eliminate the ememployer mandate was greeted with outrage, claiming that we were trying to gut obama care. today you hear a different story. that ememployer mandate, no big deal. really just an afterthought. it has no impact on businesses like yours. in fact, what we hear today is that this one-year reprieve is the greatest thing since sliced bread. is ememployer mandate impacting your business and your ability to higher? -- hire? is this reprieve what you seek? this one-year temporary reprieve, is that what you think is the solution? >> it looks like the one-year reprieve doesn't do anything to address the mandate itself. i am not under it right now, it does prevent me from growing my business to become even larger. as i told you, for 10 years i
opened up about 1.5 locations per year on average, and i wanted to grow forever, but since 2008, i have really slowed that down. >> how many people are you hiring as a new franchise? >> each location i have employs anywhere between 10 and 25 people. probably three of those people on average are full timers. the rest are part timers. i am in a business where i have a lot of first-time employees, high school or college people, or people just trying to make ends meet by getting a part-time job. the full timers aren't as numerous as the part timers. >> so for you the ememployer mandate is not a small thing? >> it is not a small thing at all. you know, i have been nominated and elected as franchise eof the year many times. i am very engaged with my system, i am engaged with the i.s.a., and i am engaged with
business, but i am embarrassed to say, i don't know what the requirements of the man on health care is. i know it is coming up, but i still don't have any information on it. i am upset to know i have to worry about all these things rather than grow my business and provide jobs. this takes up all my time now. i don't want to call out mr. mcdermott, but he said on the fourth of july worrying about these changes, but i did. as a small business owner, i worked on the fourth of july. i fielded calls asking about what this meant on the fourth of uly. >> the i.r.s. tax system isn't an honor system. at least the i.r.s. uses $10 million to enforce that.
- $10 billion to enforce that. h.h.s. uses $8 billion to create out of thin air to postpone the cuts before the election. i just wonder if they would like to have that will $8 billion back now that they are claiming they don't have the ability to implement. >> with respect to the first question about the tax system being an honor system. kerm certainly parts of our tax system are covered by reporting, but many are not. this congress repealed the 1099 requirement that was supposed to take small businesses off the honor system with respect to purchasing of goods of more than $600, and the c.b.o. projected that last $2,200 in revenue. the tax gap in the united states us -- was estimated to be $285 billion in uncollected taxes.
those taxes were uncollected because we do see sentionly have an honor system for many parts of our system. >> what we are learning from the i.r.s. investigation ss that our agents are apparently spending all their time pursuing political agendas rather than enforcement of our current law. obama care, h.h.s., squandered $8 billion on programs made out of thin air and got hammered on. back to the issue here. is it fair to demand that businesses -- that workers and their families have a government mandate when we have given a reprieve for businesses? >> thank you, mr. chairman. it strikes me that the issue here is basically not about the delay. because the businesses asked for the delay, and the government gave it to them. that's off the table. the real urpe issue here is whether you want obama care or
not. now you're going to do it, and you're going to have any kind of mandate. now, from the very start, everybody has understood that for a system to work, you have to have everybody in. justice scalia, in his oral questioning on this case in the supreme court shrks when talking about the mandatory coverage provision said, my approach could be, say if you take the heart out of the statute, the shat statute is gone. there's going to be a deficit used to be made up by mandatory coverage provisions. all that money has to come from somewhere. so you just are put to a choice, i guess. bankrupting the insurance companies, and the whole system comes tumbling down, or else enacting a federal subsidy program that the insurance would like. now, it is clear that there is a difference between the ememployer mandate and the
individual mandate. the individual mandate is the core of the issue. we don't require americans, we are going to continue to have people that have free rides. they walk into the emergency room and get taken care of. nd you and i that work -- walk and pay emergency room for it, have to pay $1,000 a year toward their coverage. healthcare.gov is on the computer. you can look in there. there is a section for small businesses. i'm sure you have looked in there. you can read, obviously, so you know what's there. explain what is really going to happen to individuals when this law is implemented in january, as people are enrolled from
september to october 1, what's going to happen to them? >> one thing i would like to point out is the individual mandate is already being phased in. if we're trying to level the playing field, that's what h.h.s. is doing. the first year sanctions for not complying with the individual mandate was $95. again, that's only if you don't fit in to one of the many exemptions or you can afford health care. it then phases up over three years. we're essentially doing the same thing for businesses. we are saying you don't have to comply the first year. you do have to get serious about compliance after that. so fars as far asing the playing -- so as far as leveling the playing field, that's essentially what the administration is doing. although i'm not entirely sure i like the way we did it. people who cannot afford health insurance, people who find insurance unaffordable, people eligible for medicaid, can show up at the exchanges and sign up,
and there will be many insurers and insurance agents and brokers and navigators and community assistors and enrollment counselors trying to get them in that door. i have a good friend in church who a week ago discovered she had a big lump on her back. she went to see a doctor in the emergency room. the doctor said it could be cancer. he said, i can operate on it, but you will have to pay me a quarter of my fee up front. she's not ensured. as of january 1, she will be able to get health insurance. >> how will think -- they go about verifying whether she's eligible for a subsidy or not? >> she will go to the exchange. this is what came out in the rules. i frankly spent 18 hours on saturday reading the 1,800 rules. so if anyone wants to know what it says, you can go to my blog
blog at health affairs.org and it is there. the first thing is, the exchange will log into the data which will have information from social security, from homeland security. it will verify that the person is a citizen or a legal resident and the amount of income that they reported the primary year. if the income is essentially the same as nonprofit. if they are reporting now my income is significantly decreased, the federal changes will -- the state exchanges have the flexibility of instead doing a statistic cal sampling. they will, for a sample of the people in the exchange, they will ask for verification of income, but the rest they will not for the first year to relieve the burden from the tate exchange.
> thank you, mr. chairman. boy, i tell you, i hate to see a indicatorship come into this country, but it sure looks like that's what's happening with health care. any concern about impact of the obama care on the federal government, and the criticism was that there was over $1.8 trillion in spending, and many of the pay forwards were in fact budget gimmicks. claimed the class act would raise $80 billion. but the administration shut it down, because they admitted it was fisscally unsustainable. the 1099 reporting requirement on business that raised $22 billion, congress repealed that. both the house and senate have voted to repeal the medical device tax because it is costing jobs and hurting medical innovation. that tax rate is over $30
billion. now the ememployer mandate is delayed. lost at least $10 billion. in 2014 alone in penalties. as you point out, this never goes in effect, that's another $140 billion. with a lack of ememployer reporting, there will be more errors and more subsidies so the coft of obama care is just going up and up and up. r. capretta, is obama care now officially a fiscal time bomb? can it be considered a drain on the economy and the american family? >> yes. the short answer is yes. it was always a fiscal time bomb. it has been made more so by the fact that the administration is implementing something that was not passed. so as you indicated, you enumerated many of the issues. there are a few more. there was a health insurance tax that applied to fully insured products. it is a huge distortion in the marketplace pushing a lot of
people who probably should not self-insure toward self-insurance to avoid the tax. it probably bonet won't -- it probably won't survive long term. the individual mandate is tied to it in a lot of ways. they are thinking they are going to delekt collect about $45 mill mill. in the first year, i -- they thought they could collect $4 billion. i don't think they collected $2 billion. you will have more people getting subsidies than actually got an affordable offer of coverage. finally, you know they cut about $700 billion out of medicare as part of this. they officially double counted the money. they spent the money in the new enfight lment programs and they are counting on those reserves. the whole thing is built on a house of cards. it is not fisscally sustainable.
the announcement was made last week it is built on science we an't count on. >> i remember whether i was stationed in england in the air force, as you know, they have that system over there. i walked into the doctor's office with my son. they said, are you paying? i said yes, come right in, ahead of about 100 people that were waiting out there. that's the way you make health care work. . capretta, you said this is officially a fiscal time bomb. 4 >> i think the last week's announcement by the administration was that it was. one thing that struck me is that it is quite clear that employers are going to the administration saying, hey this is costing jobs. if you look at recent president data, there are lots of evidence that small businesses are not growing as fast, that they are
moving people into part-time work. the administration is hearing this, i'm sure, from lots of people around the country. they have allies trying to promote the law. but if it was a bad idea to enforce this in 2014, i can't imagine it will be a good idea in 2015. they will have a real tough time juffing to make this part -- justifying to make this part of the law. so it is a burden on the economy, and frankly i think the administration admitted as such. >> thank you to all the time witnesses for being here. i don't think you can claim that anyone is excited about this delay. i don't like the delay more than anybody else. i would suggest that it is better to do the delay than -- and to get this right than not do the delay and get it wrong.
this is important stuff. i think it is important to point out, we didn't do health care reform because we didn't have anything else to do one day. we didn't wake up and say, nothing is going on, let's do health care reform. leark reform was in response to a national crisis, and i don't think that we can downplay that. we had folks who weren't insured. we all know that. we had people that were a layoff away from having no insurance at all or a sickness away from g having no coverage at all. that is devastating to everybody, including the usiness community. we had a system where we had uncompensated care costs in every office across the country. everybody had millions of dollars of uncompensated hear
health care costs to our providers and to our hospitals. the system was broken. that's what we tried to fix. it is important that we get it right. it is important that we insure folks. i believe that we're going to hit asnags along the way. i don't think there is any program of any importance where this isn't going to be the case. i know people across this country, and people in my state, in particular in california, are working very hard to make sure that affordable health care and health care insurance are available to people who need it. >> you mentioned that some of
the challenges that businesses were facing. i can tell you without question, the businesses in my district want this to work. you talked about the lack of information. doesn't your association provide as members with health ain regard to many different rograms, including health care reform? >> absolutely. i have been to 15 or 20 different conferences. >> i know other business associations do it. >> i have had in my district forums for small business owners to come in and get answers to these questions. it is important that you do
count these answers. it is important from all of us we work providing those. do you see this delay of the ememployer health care provision delaying health care insurance in states like california who have been working diligently to set up their exchanges? > i don't think this will have an impact. i think a delay will have a significant impact. i have talked to a lot of regular lateors and insurers, and they would be very, very worried if the individual mandate would be delayed. as weak as it is, it is what is going to keep insurance markets from collapsing once we open the door to people with preexisting conditions and offer federal tax credits to help people get insured. >> mr. mcdermott mentioned that one of the reasons this was postponed was in response to
business requests. i know you are not priffy to discussions, but is it fair to say that one of the reasons that they have been hearing from businesses that they needed -- >> absolutely. and i included in my testimony statements from at least six associations, like the employee benefits council that came out strongly affirming this when it was announced. >> is this unprecedented? have administrations delayed? >> not at all. administrations have released a list of when other administrations, including the previous administration and delayed effective dates. > thank you. >> if this isn't a case of the need to simplify government, i don't know what is.
this law is simply unraveling before our eyes. i will give you a chance to respond in a minute. you are a well known budget and policy fiscal expert, health care expert. give me a sense of what the administration was looking at as they saw this ememployer mandate unfolding from the perspective of what it was going to do to the economy and twa what it was going to do to help insurance markets? what were the actuarial estimates? i know a study was put out to what would help employers once this mandate was put out. as you recall, the law was sold on the premise that if you liked what you got, you could keep it. so those of us that were here when this law was written, this is a law that was written which was never intended to go into law. the law as written was a senate bill written basically on christmas eve with the intent to get into conference then rewrite
the law, fix it with the house, and then pass a final version. but because they lost the senate race in massachusetts, because they didn't have the ability to and ck to the senate again pass an improved version, they took the bill they wrote in dur recess on christmas eve and shoehorned that into law, which is what we have today. so we see all these shoes dropping. what was the administration looking at? we will dig into their actuarial models. what were they looking into, in your judgment, because you look at the same numbers? >> i think they were looking at two things. if you look at 2009 and read reishaur said about this part of the mandate, i think they figured out, it is essentially unenforceable because of the massive data requirements they are imposing on ememployers across the
country. they figured out number one this thing was way, way too much of a burden just to comply. with employers having to file these forms, depilling out details about the insurance they are offering, it is a massive new burden. employers are going to them saying, you have to be kidding me? we have to change every i.t. system in the country to comply with this thing? it ain't going to work. i think the treasury department figured that out. they said, look, it is going to be devastating. tling be a total mess. the second thing i think they phil figured out is what you are alluding to you tofment they are kind of stuck at this point. because they have this massive subsidy from going into the exchanges. the reason the employee mandate was there in part is because they wanted to take this out of the system. they put this massive mandate in place. they say, if you are of a certain size, you have to comply. now that that is gone for at least one year, it is easier for people to dump their people into
the exchanges. i don't know if that is there gameplan, but certainly it was used to drive into the exchanges and drive up cost. treasury has found out that, look, the burden we were going to impose was so much, it was going to cost jobs, it would probably explode and not work, so therefore we are stuck between a rock and a hard place and we take the easy way out. >> so we see estimates whereas any as 60 million to 100 million people could have lost their jobs and got dumped into the exchanges. so we have employers in some cases doubling and tripling the cost of health insurance.
so through the regulations we are imposing much, much higher costs. so pl it will make health care mor expensive then subsidize it so the consumer doesn't feel it as much, the taxpayer feels the burden, the ememployer has a greater incentive to stop offering health care to their employees. most ememployers are sitting around the table saying, well, if my competitor is going to drop health insurance and put their employees in the exchange, all i have to do is pay a $2,000 per person tax, index and inflation vs. $20,000 per family plan? once the ememployer makes that decision, it is not long after that, that their competitors will have to make the same decision and dump their employees into the exchange, and the costs will explode. i can't see that this ruling
right here will do nothing more than further explode the costs. there is so much more i can get into. >> thank you for your testimony today. i think it is always helpful for us to have these discussions. i appreciate dwrur testimony today. the challenges are you facing as a small business owner. my good friend from wisconsin, the same point could be made on the opposite side. i was back home last week, as we all were for fourth of july, and i met with a small owner. i am glad there is an ememployer mandate. i bent over backwards to make sure my employees have affordable health care coverage. now i look down the street and i have competitors who aren't doing it. he's providing affordable coverage for 65 employees because he feels it is the right thing to do for his employees.
over 95% of businesses over 50 are already providing coverage, even though there is no requirement for them to do so. they know they have made a business calculation, but they know it is in their best interest for recruitment and retention and because it is the right thing to do, to try to provide health care coverage. the same argument could be made on the other side. providing health care insurance? >> i do provide for my full-time employees. i don't think the argument is there. i think the argument is more the mandating and employment requirements. >> you are requiring health insurance? >> for the full timers, yes. >> what is your recommendations is the what recommendation to the congress? to fully repeal the affordable care act or fix pieces of it?
>> i think replacing and repealing would be an optimal outcome. >> i am for repealing and replacing. >> repeal and replace. >> if it doesn't get replaced, then repeal. >> i think there are some things that need to be fixed and they can be fixed. >> my dad probably gave me the best political advice. he said you will face two critics. people who criticize you because they want to see you go better and those that criticize you because they want to see you fail. there is so much competition for political reasons alone to see that this thing fails, and not fix r this is going to health care. that's the real dradgeti. every year i introduce the shop act, which became the basis of
the health care insurance reform. we didn't have an ememployer mandate as part of the legislation, but when i introduced the bill, there were an equal number of republicans and democrats that supported it. now we have had seven states report back on what the rates would be for small businesses entering the shop exchanges, and they are coming in below what current rates are. it is because what the exchange does is, it sets up competition and transparancy. they are empowering small businesses to have the same type of leverage that larger businesses have. -- u know >> probably dealing with about 85%, something like that. >> i have a chart. i ran it off your membership list. it shows those with 40 or more employers with roughly a little more than 70% of your employers.
roughly 3% of them are below 50. they are not going to be impacted now on the ememployer mandate. is that right? >> no. >> what type of information are you sending out to those members in regard to the affordable health care act now? >> well, they have a whole series of information. we send staff out. >> good, because i think there is a whole lot of misinformation going out. are you also a member? >> no, i am not. >> sorry. i didn't want to put you on the pot. >> del are a lot of sites small
businesses can go to, to get the facts. that's what i'm hearing from folks back home more than ever. we just want the facts. we want to prepare for what's coming up. so if we can focus on that and have honest conversations like what we're trying to have today, i think all of us would be much better off. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just say, republicans want health care to be successful. they want americans to have good quality health care. we see this as not about some political issue, about having the bill fail, we see this as a -- definitely something that leans toward socialism. so socialism has been known around the globe to fail time and time again. you may remember in the 2000 debate, these are the delamse claims we are making, to centralize the health care system in washington, which has failed around the globe.
so we want to improve health care. now, i have a question that i'm to give to mr. -- and mr. jost. i don't know what part of the law the administration is using to allow -- to say that this mandate on the ememployer site can be ignored. i don't know why my friends across the aisle are -- aren't insisting that the letter of the law is followed. so do you know what part of the affordable care act was used? what are they citing to essentially waive this requirement? >> in the blog posted in reference, they cite the reporting requirements where they are going for a delay. they are not actually going into the structure of the mandate itself. they are going to the sections that require employers to report on what they are doing regarding health care insurance. but there has been an inquiry by the leadership of the house to
the president and his team asking that very question. i think they have been asked and pressed, but there has been no official response from the administration about their legal reasoning about how they can do this. >> what is your personal opinion, mr. capretta. >> my personal opinion is -- well, i'm not a lawyer. we can stipulate to that. i think it is obvious on its face this is not what congress intended. whatever the legal -- however they stretch this back and say we can misinterpret this -- this is not what was intended. obviously the ememployer mandate was suppose to in effect in 2014. a reporting system was supposed to in effect in 2014. if you read the statute, it is obvious that's what was intended. i don't know how they can stretch the language and do something different. >> thank you. >> there was a reference to an earlier c.r.f. report that
referenced the track case, which is the leading case in this area. the i.r.s. is relying on general rule-making authority. and what the track case said, which is the d.c. circuit case, which is the leading case in this area, is that when the question arises as to whether an administration can delay enforcement of a law, it is subject to a rule of reason. where congress requires a date compliance, other things that can be considered is whether it was -- it would damage human health and welfare. whether the court should consider the delayed action or other agency activities of a higher competing priority. in other words, resource constraints. what evidence would be prejudice by the delay. o i think looking at the
judicial legal authority here, they do have some rume room -- some room. >> so unions have been granted special wavers. now you have done an ememployer waiver. why can't you do an individual mandate waiver? >> in the first place, i'm not sure what you are referring to with regard to unions. there was included in the statute delay of the annual limits required, and some unions under that. hray although, a lot of businesses did as well. >> can the white house grant an individual waiver? that's my question. to the individual. >> the statute permits a waiver. and in regulations published about a week or two ago, the administration interpreted that very broadly. there will be many, many people that will qualify for a hardship waiver. there are already 7 or 8 other exemptions.
including an exemption for anyone who cannot afford coverage. so the individual mandate has been ride widely misunderstood. >> so why not just do an individual mandate waiver also at a time? >> because people who can afford health insurance ought to buy health insurance. they ought not wait until they get sick and expect their neighbors to take care of them. >> mandated by the government. >> yes. >> mandated by the government. >> yes. >> that's not an individual liberty -- >> like car insurance. > when all else fails, send up the red flag. socialism p apocalypse now. we heard it again recently. i resent the fact. first of all you have accused those folks that sat hour after hour in putting their legislation together of doing a
christmas eve swing. months after months, listening to many people on this issue. is this perfect? there is not a piece of legislation that ever came through this body that was perfect. we need change. ou cannot deny that obama care is helping millions of americans. you want chapter and verse, i'll give it to you. you cannot deny that most employers offer health insurance even without a mandate. and small businesses will be exempt. you have no idea about health reform yourself. in fact those put before the congress your own party rejecked. o you can't have it both ways. more important, it is better to
be right than fast. you know that better than anybody on this panel. things change. things need to be corrected. so mr. falk, when you say the information is not existing, i will give you the information. >> i can't say it was not in existence, sir. >> well, it's here. in fact, on the first page of the regulations, which you referred to, you haven't looked at anyway, is a very interesting int of this legislation, the medical loss ratio. do you know what that is? >> no, i don't, sir. >> let me tell you what the medical loss ratio is. that is ainsurance companies now spend a rovide and specified percentage of premium dollars on medical care, which they were never age to have to -- which they were never able to have to do before. this is critical to everybody.
i am glad you are not the only -- this is all about repeal. they don't want to change it. they want to do away with it. the election is over. the supreme court decision has been rendered. but we're going to continue to try to do away with this entire ece of legislation, which is reforming health care. more than 95% of business rs small businesses. they have fewer than 50 employees. that would not be subject to this mandate. you agree with me so far? >> not subject to this mandate is not a static term, because businesses grow and -- >> do you agree with me or disagree? >> i disagree. >> then a small business with more than 250 employees are
subject to the employer responsibility requirement. 200,000 larger employers, at least 95%, are ready for health insurance for their employees. do you agree with that statement? >> yes. >> do you agree? >> i agree, but that doesn't mention that all those employees are covered. >> what do you mean by that? >> 95%, or 97% of businesses, as i mentioned in my remarks, 97% of businesses with more than 50 or more employees do offer health benefits but not necessarily to all employees. a significant number of the unemployed are employed by those people. >> mr. jost, do you think it is ikely that employers who currently offer coverage now would stop dropping their health insurance all of a sudden? >> no. they know it is going to come
back in 2015. >> this is all i've been hearling over here. what do you think? >> the main reason employers offer health insurance to employees is recruitment and retention. another reason is there are huge tax benefits that are already there. if we want to have the largest tax increase in american history by abolishing the lawyer tax cut and exclusions, we can talk about that. i'm not sure many in this room want to do that. >> i would. do you agree with mr. jost? >> i agree it would be better to move away from ememployee sponsored. > thank you. many are looking
for attempts to improve the bill. we're not looking for perfect. we're looking for even a reasonable character zation of what was promised. what was promised to the american public by the president of the united states is, you get -- average health care costs per family are going to go down $25 per year. remember that? that's not true. so we're looking for a reasonable assimilation of the reputation to the public by the president of the united states and his administration during the course of the debate. that is long gone. that is far in the distance. that is never going to happen. so now here we are, and we're debating and we're considering what is clearly an embarrassment. and it's an embarrassment that we could see a foreshadowing of it when then speaker of the house nancy pelosi said this out loud.
she said, we have to pass this bill so that you can see what's in it. wow, she just doesn't dispoinlt point. and here we are. so now we have a situation where essentially the administration for years has been pumping sunshine. for years the administration when asked, how are you doing this exactly? how is this great feat coming to fruition? and this committee and in all sorts of public representations s been told "it's fine, it's great, we've got it under control." in fact, we've got a wonderful plan for late before a holiday weekend, a bloginistration, on post, essentially whispers, it is not working. whoops. this is a mess.
-- you know what? you may not be older hear me but the whole country heard that whisper. we were admonished a couple minutes ago to go check websites? it is ridiculous. here we are. my prediction is this. obama care statute, the affordable care act as it has been enacted is unsustainable. because of a whole host of reasons. the architecture is fundamentally flawed. .t is an oedipus now wavering one of two things will happen. all, butonents, not many proponents of obamacare, their hearts desire is a single- payer system. they admitted that during the course. position wasck the public option. they could not get the public
option. fallback position was obamacare. that is their hearts desire. single-payer system. that is one way this could go. the other way it could go, and it is my hope, that it goes in a very different direction. that is toward the consumer oriented health care system. do we want to repeal this? .ou bet your life we want to replace it. the red herring argument we heard a couple minutes ago from my friend from wisconsin was that, somehow, a desire to see something fail is somehow unjust. to seet we want is health care improve, but we have a far different vision, one that was out during the debate in this committee late at night during the debate on obamacare, but now it is coming to fruition and we have an opportunity to remedy this.
can do this, that we can have patient oriented consumer health hair -- care that empowers patients and physicians to meet one another and have an absolutely terrific a governmentt telling us what is right and what is wrong. i yield back. >> thank you. >> you allow me to participate in these very important hearings. ,o my friend in the colleague to join with the sunshine ofpit, and that is what all us are, we have really tried hard to improve the quality of life for americans, and we have
these hearings to see whether or the storms or impediments, to see whether we are doing the right thing. i want to thank all of you to help us make certain that if we are on the wrong track, you can help us by improving the work we are doing. it is my basic understanding, that was -- with the exception, the other four witnesses support repeal. you believe we are to get rid of this. i assume, out of the four, with the exception, right now, none of you have a small business. you do not make payrolls and you do not have responsibility for healthcare and pension benefits. is that correct? you areassume further
not just volunteering your thoughts. the three of you are experts in , unlike mr. falk, and you get paid for what you do the same way doctors and calling youpaid lobbyists would not be a stigma but a label as to what your business is. am i correct in that assumption? >> i am not a lobbyist. researchisan policy institute. what i articulated, alternative to the affordable care act rejig [indiscernible] -- [indiscernible] if youwould not be here were supporting and trying to improve the health care.
you are here basically -- your income is based on the fact that is your professional position. disagreed strongly with you. >> do not disagree. just say what it is. >> my positions are on the record and i read them everyday on the internet era >> i am get paidu whether you for advocating your position. that is all. i do not doubt you are a professional. >> i do not get paid to advocate a particular position. qwest did you get paid for advocating a healthcare system within? >> i did not. >> you are a volunteer professional. >> i volunteered for the romney campaign. >> in the positions you take on health care, you do not get compensated? not for taking any particular position. doing isou are
volunteer competition -- contribution to help us understand your position. you do have a possession -- professional position? >> i have articulated my view about the art -- the affordable air dashed affordable care act. >> you have done eloquently. it appears to me it is mr. fox opinion -- mr. falk's opinion that would help us to get it done. incidentally, my son is a marine. . cannot say anything unkind i want to thank you guys in the marines for your service. whatever they put in your water, i could understand you are just as excited about your business as you have been for serving our great country. i want to thank you for your service. with all of the people you hire, part-time and full-time, what is the breakout in that? part-time have more
than full-time. >> 15% of my employees are full timers by choice. most of the people i employ are first-time employees. high schoolers and college kids, -- >> if you needed full-time, you would hire full-time. supply and demand. >> i offer them as many hours as they want. >> ok. you said those who work full- time, they get healthcare. they accepted? >> not all the time. it is because i am a nice guy. it is about providing an opportunity for my employees. i want to take care of them because they are valuable to me. >> time is expired. one closingt ask
question? perhaps after. >> that would be no. >> you may have different views and different beliefs because you are here because you care about the issue, you are at birds in the issue. pleased you are here with us today. >> thank you. a macro question, if we can. since the enactment of obamacare to this point, when the employer mandate has been temporarily suspended for a the, what do you think overall impact of the enactment has had on gdp growth? what is your thought on the impact of slow growth we have had in the gdp over the past few years relative to the the proposedn or
implementation of this enactment? what impact on the decisions, our job creators, relative to the decisions to hire and expand? >> i do not think i have seen an academic estimate of that. it is a subjective response i will have to give. there has been a lot of information coming through the , even at the federal reserve level, where they noted employers have responded to the incentive of the healthcare law by limiting the hiring. the direction is clear, negative. the size and quantity of it, that is harder for, even at thel reserve level, where they noteda number on that. there have been many reasons why the economy performed poorly. this is one of the reasons. i would add what we have seen
is a substantial shift from full-time to part-time employment. record high numbers of people who are part-time workers and lower numbers of full-time workers. that is a transition i would expect to continue as a small employers wrestle with the mandate. another reason why it would be great policy to repeal the employer mandate. and produce it monthly on the status of small has beeneconomy and it clear over the last few years things have not gone well. pullifficulty is trying to out what is the macro economic issues from the problems put forward by obamacare. as tonot tear them apart which is which.
it has had impact on their of the requirements before them. we have some data suggesting leasing -- recently they are caught -- becoming concerned about political issues increasingly rather than economic issues. --itical is a very wide turn term. think itdicated you is important to provide health insurance to your full-time employees and you also indicated part-time employers are offered the opportunity to work more hours if they want to. does that working more hours at some point land to the prospect you might get to a point where you would hit the 50 full-time employee threshold? if so, what that means in terms of your ability to conduct your
business is, you're 12 units? >> definitely it is i have taken into consideration. i will go over that threshold immediately. >> what has been happening with your current insurance amy adams or the health insurance providing? is that steady and has that gone down? >> it is true. insurancea myth my premiums that we share the premium on, it cost them more and me more every year. >> could that be tied to the continuing pressures of the obamacare requirements that the health-insurance industry continue to pay billions of dollars to the federal government each year and it is passed onto employers to pay those premiums, the the lifting of the policy cap, part of the enactment, the extension of coverage to those, do you think all of those factors continue
under obama care lend themselves to increasing premiums for the job crater on the street? >> i do not know. was good at pointing out all of these panel members were experts on health care. they have until july to get 12 businesses up and running and there is a website they can go to to figure it out. i am sure they would be overwhelmed. this takes up all of my time right now. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> i want to commend you. this is a remarkably important topic as we move forward with the calamity confronting the country right now. republicans are for positive health reform, that recognizes patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions.
i would encourage him to take a peek at it and embrace positive solutions. was talked about being all about politics. you talk about politics. here is an announcement from the administration coming out a block post from the irs. ,e have governance by law post that delays the root port -- the reporting requirements for employers for a year that happens to fall after the 2014 election. talk about politics. i would encourage my friends to open their eyes to the political activity of the administration. .ou said, if you actually care you would throw more money at this program. the all due respect, if
individuals who wrote this law actually cared about the health care of this country, they might have investigated the consequences for the physicians taking care of those patients. they might have talked to folks trying to run a business and create jobs, instead of doing what we have clearly identified and it has been admitted to when folks on the other side of the aisle when they are honest behind closed doors, this was not supposed to be the final requirement. oneoes not change the law iota. i want to commend you for what you are trying to do out there to navigate the remarkable waters of this destructive law. you mentioned in response to mr. , there wasou said concern about getting information. you were having difficulty doing that and he did not allow you to respond.
the things i wanted to respond to him about, i have been to conventions and we have had a briefing about health ear every time but every time it is different. the target continues to move. with every new policy or extension or consideration they are giving to someone else, i still do not know what to do. he is right. there is a website out there. it just got announced publicly a couple weeks ago. i understand that. i will look up all the information i can. i am engaged. i do all of these invent -- events and conferences. of small-business owners probably have no idea what is going on. they do not know about health care.gov. >> it is a wonderful, beautiful site, but does nothing to assist you. when you spend all this time trying to comply with
government regulations like this and rules that are incomprehensible, what are the consequences to your business and job creation? >> these guys are experts but are not creating any jobs. i am trying to grow by business. i am fortunate enough to be a large enough small-business owner that i have an administrative assistant but i do not have a government relations person on my staff like microsoft has. i have to shoulder all of these urchins to find out what is going on with health care and how much it will affect me and my employers and my business. my business provides me an income for my family, the profit that i make. -- costsuse can see continue to take out the prophet, i will decide to close out my lower performing units because they will not make enough money and it will take
jobs away. >> exactly. i want to touch on the point you are making on workers. i have had employers tell me they are decreasing the number of full-time to part-time workers because of this law. 320 2000 increase in part-time june.s to 8.2 million in can you describe consequences happening in the real world, bringing about increasing part- time workers and how destructive that is to jobs? >> we have heard talk about what the right thing to do is or what employers do if they care. we have not heard a lot about what the incentives are. they are clear. it is to structure part-time workers so they do not have to offer it to part-time workers. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to mention. we have two chambers in our
area. about 2000 each. 90%. 50 employees or less. with them.active 130 7000 businesses. in that chamber. , 50 employees or less. the number one issue in the last 13 years or 15 years, the number one issue is the rising cost of health. in our area, we had one employer that has been somewhat successful. his cost last year went up. the other end of the spectrum, when we do town halls, we all do town hall meetings, one woman stood up and said, i have six employees and my health care costs has gone from $1000 to $2000 for a family of four. that is the thing that is crazy. it is unbelievable.
they would cut the cost 25% and i'm just looking at reality with a lot of his misses that if they get their bill every year -- if pharmacists will came at 20 -- 27% increase. he negotiated out 12%. the employees are kicking in more and the coverage is not quite as good so they get it down to 12%. that is a reality. this is doing nothing to bend the cost of healthcare, even though it is supposed to come down 25%. i want to go to one point you make, and that is the uncertainty people are feeling about not growing and not creating jobs. you said healthcare costs are going to double or triple. how did you say how healthcare costs are going up to stand shall he and give me more background on where you get your information from.
>> health insurance is increasing for everyone but it will increase for people who shop for themselves, the individual market. that is where the affordable care act heavy regulation will drive up the cost of the insurance plans of the market by two times for some workers and on an average -- you are saying a worker might pay what now and what they will pay in the future? >> in california, where i have done extensive research, the average increase for runs of civilized individuals will increase by about 70%. >> that is what i'm hearing. i want to applaud you because we need to be competitive in this country with china and india, more people willing to take risks & a note at the bank, so i applaud you and what you are doing. you said something about planning. everybody, i have always done
some kind of planning. his coste factors is going forward for employees? it used to be 22% someone said. now you hire someone for 50,000, almost 40% in terms of his experience. howerms of your business, many jobs have you not created or businesses you might not have opened as a result of dealing with the uncertainty? >> from 1990 82 2008, 1.5 locations per year on average. i have opened up to locations and that was just last year. i would say i probably could have opened up another six to eight locations. i can probably move more aggressively as i get a grip i have chosen not to do that because of the uncertain economy and the regulation changes that happened with taxation and
everything else. it is the most important regulation right now that is on my mind. >> i was going to mention you set multiple entities. is that a huge issue, or is that in a list of five or six things, is that at the bottom of the list? isot of people, they own a missed that his family related or the sun owns a is and they are very good is the most import regulation right now that is on my mind. turned about the uncertainty. >> we do not know exactly how big it is. i call it a sleeper issue because we just do not know exactly how much, how broad this extends. all small businesses that have 20 or more employees, only 35% have a single owner and most have multiple owners. then you talk about business owners, and 39% of them own
multiple businesses. they do this in combinations. expired.ime has >> thank you. >> you are welcome here it mr. smith is recognized. >> turned about the uncertainty. i know you have great respective and expertise on both sides of the issue. these discussions are healthy and need to be had. we know the american people want our health care system to work and there is growing skepticism gets involved and the more expensive it becomes, and people can be harmed. that is a growing concern, one i think we all share. , you are an expert on the healthcare bill. i appreciate that. you probably study that a great deal. this component we have discussed here today, we are told is not
ready for enforcement. think there are other components that might share the ?ame view of yours are there other parts that perhaps you think need to be delayed as well? >> i think the administration is in triage mode. they do not have the resources to implement all of the provisions on time. resources?lack of >> much is. another part is the way this law is intended to be implemented, the states would take much of the responsibility. for political reasons, the states have declined to do that. . i think they are under a lot of pressure and are trying to decide what needs to be done right now and what can wait. there have been other provisions. another that relates to business is nondiscrimination.
which says that for businesses who are insured, they cannot offer a better package to their highly compensated employees. that raises a lot of difficulty issues which we could probably spend another hearing talking that position fortunately says nothing happens until they put out regulation. they are trying to put that out. they do not talk to me anymore than they talk to you but i think they decided they are going to focus on what is essential, which is the premium tax credit, the individual mandate to keep the insurance markets from collapsing, getting the exchanges up and running. >> when you say the premium tax cut, is that the small business tax credit i constantly hear from folks back home, that it is so complex? >> this is the individual tax credit.
credit isbusiness tax already out there. >> do you feel there are a lot of small businesses eager to take advantage of that? >> a nonprofit my wife is on the board of has taken advantage of that and found it allows them to extend insurance to their employees. you are right. toy have found it is limited very small businesses with lower wage employees. >> the administration is moving ahead with the resources and the time they have to do the essential, get health insurance to those uninsured and who need healthcare. >> thank you. if you could reflect on the small business perspective on the small business tax credit. the feedback i get is it is much more hassle than it is worth ended as to the complexity of
our over complex tax code. >> yes. , i small business tax credit do not want to call it totally a fiasco, but it has not done much. it was the reason was not structured very well. it is complex. it is a baite is, and switch in the sense it brings you in and gives you credit for a while and after a while it goes way. it gives you this incentive to make an obligation, if you will. once you have made the obligation and it has gone on for a year or two, then it is gone. so, it has not been successful fewhe sense of very businesses have taken advantage of it.
there have been a few businesses that have taken advantage of it. in all likelihood, they would have in offering healthcare anyway. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. kelly is recognized. >> i thank him for being here. i am a small business person. at i think, when you look this whole activity taking place now, and i think the piece is met -- that is missing most is the relationships you build with the folks working for you. being an employer and having associates, we had 100 and people at any given time. the relationship is a lot different. --s not a front -- front front end machine. it is a person. talking about today is people. is it fair for everybody? does it make sense for the american people? is it providing what it was supposed to provide.
now the infrastructure is being delayed. it is not being waited, it is being delayed. people need to understand, you as an individual, you are a good guy. and i am sure the people you pay, they think i'm a good guy, but only if i could pay them. theywere for me because can provide for their families. this piece of legislation has made it so difficult for people to get up every day and walk into their business, that have to worry about payday and have to worry that you have to sign the front half of the checks are your employee can sign the back half of the check and that better be able to work. what is missing here, and i find it unusual and outfit running $17 trillion in the red is able -- able to sit down and give
anybody business advice. give me a break. are of the things we run not only family-owned but they are family operated. i've got to tell you, i have been two baptisms and first minions and weddings and i have been to funerals. we follow each other the whole way through life. these are people. people we get to know. they are part of who we are and that is what makes us successful. this law separates you. you are no longer able to be the good guy. you are a guy now keeping them from attaining something because the government mandated it be done. now, you do not have to worry about that. >> why? it is not because small business asked for it -- give me -- the honest about this. the american people have witnessed this and they now know if it waddles like a duck
and quacks like a duck, this is a duck. it is a bad piece of legislation that has not served its purpose. if you like your duck, you can keep it. if you want to sit down, i am 65, and decide what my medical future is, forget that. that will not happen. now, the individual mandate is still in place. live with these folks, you work with them every day, and you work how many hours a week? >> 80. >> and i know, on fourth of july. we are open on fourth of july, two. it is not just about that. you run your own business, and it does not matter whether it is the first or the second 12. but you live it. that is my point. we have driven a wedge between you and the people who work with you, for you, and toward your mutual success. tell me how hard it is.
so much uncertainty with this. this is what makes it difficult. we do not know tomorrow what else they would hold back on. is not just there is regulatory uncertainty because the law makes so many dramatic changes. it is also that the regulations have been coming out piece by piece and contradicting each other. this is not even about small businesses, but states, the states trying to roll out these exchanges. usually democratic states. the democratic states, the directors are saying, we designed the exchange and built it and then this comes around and changes the regulation and we have to go back and start over and rebuild our systems from scratch. that has happened so many times over the last 12 months that at a certain point, a lot of these say we give up and we will like nor this and if we do not, we will not meet the deadline. it is not merely the law is
poorly designed and businesses are facing this. governments are facing this because the law is so complex and this is exhibit a. >> it is about the relationship that exists between the owner of the businesses and those who work with him. both parties participate in both parties in a fit. it will be hard. >> time has expired. this has been an eye-opening discussion. really, we need to get answers from the treasury department and we will do so next week. we will have 14 days. i have asked witnesses to respond in a timely manner. thank you again. the committee is adjourned.
>> on the next "washington journal, chairman of the house said committee will discuss the obama administration's decision to delay the employer mandates in the affordable care act. also, we will talk with eliot engel about events in egypt and syria. to edward snowden's attempt get asylum overseas. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. at the daily white house briefing, reporters questioned jay carney about the decision to delay the healthcare laws employer mandate. did the whiteity house decides to implement that law a year later than the law it elf calls for?
can provide the specifics for you on this. >> i highly recommend any issue, finding examples of rules and labors and that kind of thing. this is not an unusual process. , theis the human cry hollering you hear is reflective of a political and partisan effort? >> you are talking about the republican effort to come lane about listening to business, to postpone the deadline that affects four percent of businesses with employees. when they have done everything
they can to undermine the law from day one. they do not want to see it implemented. they have made that clear. >> you know it is not. the fact is, we have demonstrated since the passage of the affordable care act that we will make improvements where the improvements make sense. we will be flexible in its implementation were being flexible makes sense everybody who has written about this has noted the comparison to a priorityhat was a top of president george w. bush when it came to domestic policy. it passed and a lot of democrats opposed it and it passed and democrats did not want it passed and engaged in efforts to undermine it every step of the way. instead, they engaged in an effort to make sure the people they represented enjoyed the benefits of the law. i suspect most constituents who
would get insurance for the first time in a long time, if they are made aware of the possibility of enrolling in the marketplaces would expect their ,epresentatives, their senators democratic or republican, would help them in the process, rather than doing everything they can to prevent their constituents from adjoining -- enjoying the benefits of the act. >> if the white house could thely decide to delay implementation of certain aspects of bills to be passed. , ifeople who suggested there is anything unusual about the delaying of the deadline, the complex and competence of law, they are deliberately sticking their heads in the sand or are willfully ignorant about past precedent. it is not serious. we are going about the business of implementing this law in a way that maximizes the benefits
available to the american people, that minimizes the difficulties, and we will keep at it. >> also on wednesday, senate republicans held a news conference about the decision to delay parts of the healthcare law and it began with john. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for joining us today. i will be followed on the program here by the policy and senator jerry moran, the chair of the and rsc. the obama administration was forced to admit this last week, that obamacare is not working as was advertised, and they announced they would delay the employer mandate. delaying are endorsing a key component of obamacare to protect businesses from the log
they defend. we are glad they are acknowledging the onerous and costly heard in but we believe it is past time the president placededges the burden on everyday americans, and those already struggling to make it in this struggling economy. if democrats to leave businesses deserve relief from obamacare, what about the rest of america? i was joined by my colleagues tot thing a letter president obama urging him to permanently delay the implementation of obamacare for all americans. it continues to crush jobs growth and it is past time for the administration to listen to the concerns of americans struggling. in june, we saw the involuntary unemployment numbers increase by 20 200,000 due in part to the
obamacare mandates. republicans believe we must prevent the house of cards from falling on american families, not just businesses rather than a partial delay for some, america needs a permanent delay for all. .> thank you for leading this for those who believe obamacare would provide access to quality health care for all americans, the fact is it has not lived up to the billing. and, on some very fundamental , thes, like saving costs president said the average premiums for a family of four would go down by $2500. that is not the case. premiums are estimated to go up dramatically when obamacare is fully implemented. he said if you like what you have, you can keep it. well that is clearly not going to be the case because
employers will be incentivized to drop their employer coverage and then their employees will go into the state and federal- based exchanges, subsidized by the american taxpayer and the cost will balloon. that, ifre suggesting theakes sense to delay implementation of obamacare for employers, the penalty they would have to pay if they did forprovide coverage employees, that it makes perhaps even more sense to delay the additional cost and the punitive impact of implementation of obamacare for individuals. 319 million people in the united states, they leave, they deserve a break from this legislation. again, it was something many of
us prove it -- predicted. many of those who supported the passage of obamacare have had to think twice. we have seen the repeal of the 1099 requirement. we have seen 79 senators have voted on a budget rental -- resolution. provided to repeal the medical device tax because of its negative impact. we have seen the impact on full- time employment has been dramatic and many employers are hiring people on a part-time rather than full-time basis. finally, the participation rate, the number of people participating in jobs is at a 30 year low. this has had a negative impact. some might say unintended. others might say revocable, but one that demands the administration delay the implementation of this onerous
legislation for at least one year on consumers, and that is why i'm here to support it. the reason we wanted to work on health care reform, and it veryomething i was concerned about, was the cost of care. that is what the american people were looking for in health care, dealing with the cost of care. that is one of the president's original promises, that the cost would drop for a family by 2500 dollars and within his first year, in his first term as president. instead, we are seeing the prices go up significantly. this past friday, they have come out with 606 more pages of regulation. you have seen the seven foot tall tower of regulations.
they have added another 606 pages and it will continue to raise the cost. the cost of care for families and insurance for families and that is what the american people are finding and what they believe. the other worst part is they believe it will lessen the quality of their own care. for every one person thinks this healthcare law will help them, two people think it will hurt them in terms of their cost and quality of the care and that is why the healthcare law continues to be unworkable. it continues to be unaffordable, and it is very unpopular. the law is unraveling. one of the threats to that was of president and the delay a year announced. that was for the business component. we need to extend the delay for every individual so they do not have to live under the mandates of the president's healthcare law. we need to get back to the fundamentals of what we were
looking for, which is what people wanted, which is the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. all of those promises by the president have been broken. that is why we need to repeal the healthcare law and build it a step by step way the solutions to get the american people what they are looking for for health reform. so many ofteresting the president's advocates have talked about how brilliant this is to to -- to put this off until after the 2014 elections. if the road to the new healthcare plan the president signed into law three years ago is such a good road to go down, why would he not want voters to know about a gecko 3.5 years, almost no regulation before the election in 2012. as soon as the election is over, within 90 days, there are 20,000 pages of regulations.
if this is so good, why not let people know about it before and not after the election? and advocate in the last few days have said, politically brilliant. put this off, have the election in 2014 without people knowing any more than they have to know about the new path we are on in healthcare. .t is a path not working one thing after the other, discarded. long-term care provision, the class act. i do not remember when the secretary said, this will not work. i do remember most of us said it would not work when the bill was being debated. they did not try to implement that even though the law says, that is part of the law. the law also says the employer provisions will go into effect, january 1, 2015. they say, no, we will not do that.
the small business exchanges, no, we cannot get that ready by the day we're supposed to have them ready. i will be another year. 3.5 years ago, the law was signed into effect. executing the law became the responsibility of the president of the united states. now, every single election, we say, we really cannot put this information out that -- out there, or we cannot fulfill this part of the legal requirement until after the people have voted again. they know people will not like it when they see it. if they thought people would like it, it would be out there. the other thing, besides waiving the employer requirement, they wave the income verification requirement. you all remember that up to 400% of poverty, you get assistance in buying some of your insurance. now you self verify what your income is. no way, that is a
reasonable way to ask people to qualify for a new benefit. you say what you think your income will be with no way to verify that? might be as, that bigger announcement made at the same time that the announcement that employers do not have to comply. our view is nobody should have to comply with this flawed law until it is improved or we find a better course to go down. the senator's that calls for a permanent delay is the right thing to do. let's get started again. let's make the best healthcare in thein the work -- world work better rather than head down a path that apparently does not wanttion voters to know before any given the lack -- election where that takes us. >> thank you for joining us. i appreciate the comments of my colleagues. i am here as the ranking healthcan on the labor
and education appropriations subcommittee. we mark up the bill in full committee tomorrow. among a series of amendments i will offer to that bill are two i want to talk about today. i will offer an amendment that no money can be used to enforce the mandate on business within the affordable care act. i will offer an amendment that ,ays no money -- first of all we ought to give the opportunity for folks to weigh in on the president's decision to delay the business aspect of the mandate secondly, if businesses will receive relief from this onerous record- keeping time-consuming uncertainty, then individual families, our consists -- constituents, the folks back home up to have the same opportunity.
delaying the implementation of the business mandate ought to be accompanied by the delay of the individual mandate. because of the president's decision to delay the business mandate, because they admit it is not workable, it creates greater complications for individuals trying to make decisions having to comply with individual mandate. it was mentioned the self verification, no question, it creates a significant opportunity for fraud and abuse in the system, that people announced what their income is to determine how much of a subsidy they need. there will be more individuals who need to comply with the individual mandate because there will be fewer visitors is providing insurance for their employees. somiums will increase insurance will become more expensive as a result of the
decision to delay the business mandate and exchanges, according to the government accounting office will not be up and running in time for individuals to access insurance through the exchanges. because of the year-long delay in the mandate on businesses, the burden falls more heavily than it otherwise would have upon individuals and families. tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to take the first step toward trying to change this damaging piece of legislation that does not solve the individual or business problems they have in acquiring insurance for their families, themselves, or for their employees. thes becoming more clear affordable care act, obamacare, fails to accomplish its intended purposes. tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to vote to delay the
individual and the business mandate as we begin the process of trying to salvage a healthcare system that can actually benefit the american people. thank you. >> questions? wereknow, if you guys running the show, this would , but have become law short of that, whether it is temporary or her minute, you like them or not, i know a number of your colleagues asked to look into the cost implications. can you talk about that? delaying them would add to the deficit or debt, or would you say it is worth it if we can save americans from these onerous burdens? >> i get my colleagues to give their thoughts, but my view is anything we can to -- due to delay the impacts of this on the
american people is a good thing. we all acknowledge delaying the employer mandate for a year is a good thing, the individual mandate is set to kick in on the first of next year and that will hit 6 million americans with a $1200 tax increase. inevitably, you will see as many of my colleagues have noted, premiums going up as a result of the mandates in the legislation. athink we would love, in perfect world, that we were not here. we think there is a better way to do this. we are where we are. anything we can do in a significant or substantial way to delay the implementation of a bad piece of legislation that will adversely impact the american economy and jobs and raise health insurance premiums for people all across the country would be a good thing. the house will vote this week on delaying the individual
mandate for a year. i support that. we were talking about permit delay. we will like to see the thing delayed completely for everybody. it ministration is coming to the conclusion even more, you had some colleagues describe this thing as a train wreck. i think the administration is coming to the conclusion, this will be difficult to implement and they want to take the parts hardest to implement and create the most amount of pain, the penalties on employers, and put that off, but hang the benefits out there to try to get people addicted to the good things they think are in the bill. we think the individual mandate will cost people a lot of pain. there are a lot of other provisions in the bill, as well. >> can you talk a little bit about what you are planning tomorrow? >> beyond what i said? those two amendments will be front and center. toour legislative effort
amend the appropriations bill. in addition, i will offer an amendment that will define the death panel, and transfer the money to be utilized for children's health research. we will offer an amendment to eliminate the $1.4 billion in .he bill to fund the exchanges 33 states declined to create their own exchange. this was not accounted for in the original affordable care act. last year, the continuing resolution, we provided no increase in money for that purpose. the department found the necessary money to do so. the money that would come from the passage of that amendment to increase the us a sport -- support for the health research. what i would say is in this time of significant fiscal
challenges, in which we are trying to accomplish, a number of things in the appropriations process, the committee should not be paying for the mandates under the affordable care act, when we recognize that the affordable care act is falling apart, train wreck to implement. we ought to be using the opportunity to fund the things we know would actually make a difference in the affordability of healthcare and increase the chances americans are healthier. process isiations the appropriate place for us to establish rarities. the priorities are to do things that increase the health of americans, and not to increase the burden, the paperwork, the bureaucracy that comes from the affordable air cap -- care act and obamacare. i would expect democrat support and would welcome it.
>> a follow-up on the appropriations issue more broadly. one of your senate republican colleagues said yesterday, if congressional democrats want to oppose the appropriations bill without additional obamacare shut down the government. are any of you prepared for the level that, unless obama is defunded, we should have a overnment shutdown? >> first of all, we are a long way from september 30. secondly, what we need to see for the first time in six years is for the process to actually work. produce a bill, amended on the floor, decide desk this idea that we only spend the amount of money we spent last year and then subject it to sequestration is not the way to do business.
i think i hope able be doing everything they can to make this process work the right way. if it does, there will be plenty of opportunities to amend that bill on the floor. >> last question. to the proposals -- >> they do not. is trying toation put themselves in the position where the penalties go away until after the election. the penalties provide quite a bit of the funding to provide the resources for people to have assistance to buy their insurance. a may be other side of that equation where are giving money away -- they may be other side of the equation or they are